HENRY FIELDING'S USE OF SATIRE

by

KEITH JOHN MEAGHER

B . A . , The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1964

A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF

THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF

MASTER OF ARTS

in the Department

of

E n g l i sh

We a c c e p t t h i s t h e s i s as conforming to the

required standard

THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

September, 1966
In presenting t h i s t h e s i s i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of the requirements

f o r an advanced degree at the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia,, I agree

that the L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y aval]able f o r reference and •

study, 1 f u r t h e r agree that permission f o r extensive copying of t h i s

t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may be granted by the Head of my

Department or by h i s representatives. I t i s understood that copying

or p u b l i c a t i o n of t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l gain s h a l l not be allowed

without my w r i t t e n permission.

Department of

The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia
Vancouver 8 , Canada
 i i

Abstract

Henry F i e l d i n g ' s Use of Satire

Poet, playwright, journalist, and n o v e l i s t , Henry F i e l d i n g p r o -

duced a s t r i k i n g v a r i e t y of works in h i s l i t e r a r y career. A large

p o r t i o n o f t h e s e works a r e f i l l e d w i t h s a t i r e . The numerous f a r c e s ,

b u r l e s q u e s and comedies F i e l d i n g produced as a d r a m a t i s t relied heavily

for t h e i r appeal on the s o c i a l , l i t e r a r y and p o l i t i c a l s a t i r e they c o n -

tained. The i r o n y and d e r i s i o n in these works was d i r e c t e d a t s p e c i f i c

elements in h i s s o c i e t y which F i e l d i n g f e l t m e r i t e d e x p o s u r e . His pose

was t h a t of the Augustan s a t i r i s t r i d i c u l i n g the f o l l y he w i t n e s s e d

around him.

F i e l d i n g ' s f i r s t attempts at p r o s e were a l s o s a t i r i c a l , w i t h many

o f the t a r g e t s the same as those he had a t t a c k e d in h i s p l a y s . However,

the n a t u r e o f h i s s a t i r e began to change, to take on moral o v e r t o n e s as

he began to c o n c e n t r a t e on l a r g e r , more fundamental problems c o n c e r n i n g

man and h i s r e l a t i o n to s o c i e t y . Jonathan W i l d , F i e l d i n g ' s most s u s -

tained s a t i r e in the Augustan manner, i s the f i r s t o f h i s works to

fully r e v e a l the a u t h o r ' s p r e o c c u p a t i o n w i t h moral i s s u e s of h i s day.

In t h i s s a t i r e F i e l d i n g ' s concern is w i t h the p r i n c i p l e s t h a t govern

human b e h a v i o u r and the whole q u e s t i o n of good and e v i l in man's n a t u r e .

T h i s type of moral s a t i r e is c a r r i e d further in Joseph Andrews and Tom

Jones where F i e l d i n g s e t s out not o n l y to r i d i c u l e s o c i e t y ' s follies,

but a l s o to p o r t r a y a way o f l i f e as a norm o f b e h a v i o u r f o r the common

man. He i s no l o n g e r the s a t i r i s t c o n c e n t r a t i n g on the e v i l in s o c i e t y ,

f o r as n o v e l i s t he must p o r t r a y s o c i e t y w i t h a l l its intricate blendings

of good and e v i l . Even in h i s comic n o v e l s , h o w e v e r , F i e l d i n g never

c o m p l e t e l y abandoned the r o l e o f s a t i r i s t , and i t i s the changing n a t u r e

o f the s a t i r e in h i s works as he s w i t c h e d from d r a m a t i s t to novelist

that I d i s c u s s in t h i s thesis.
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter Page

I Introduction 1

11 A Writer of 'Dramatick Satire' 10

The A u t h o r ' s Farce

The Tragedy of Tragedies

Pasqu i n

I II The Miscel1 a n l e s 33

" E s s a y on N o t h i n g "

"Some PAPERS P r o p e r to be Read

b e f o r e the R 1 Society"

IV Jonathan W i l d 50

V Sat i r i s t to Novel i s t 70

A d i s c u s s i o n of Shame1 a , Joseph
Andrews, Tom J o n e s , and Amel i a .

VI Conclusion 102
 Introduction

Henry F i e l d i n g i s best known as a u t h o r of the two comic m a s t e r -

p i e c e s , Joseph Andrews and Tom J o n e s . His r e p u t a t i o n as a novel i s t is

w e l l e s t a b l i s h e d , but h i s s t a n d i n g as a s a t i r i s t remains h a z i l y d e f i n e d .

A l a r g e p o r t i o n of h i s w r i t i n g s i s now n e g l e c t e d by the general reading

p u b l i c who p r e f e r h i s n o v e l s to h i s d r a m a t i c works o r h i s essays in

which h i s r o l e as s a t i r i s t i s most e v i d e n t . However, F i e l d i n g ' s e x -

p e r i e n c e as a d r a m a t i s t and a w r i t e r of prose s a t i r e p r o v i d e d v a l u a b l e

training for h i s eventual r o l e as a n o v e l i s t . In a l l h i s major w o r k s ,

i n c l u d i n g h i s comic n o v e l s , s a t i r e p l a y s a prominent part.

From a t e c h n i c a l v i e w p o i n t , evidence of F i e l d i n g ' s d r a m a t i c back-

ground can be seen throughout his novels. Their masterful plots, their

c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n s , and the sense one has of the n a r r a t o r ' s complete c o n -

trol, r e v e a l the a u t h o r ' s e a r l y t r a i n i n g . But the s i m i l a r i t i e s go d e e p e r ,

to the s p i r i t o f the w o r k s , f o r t h e r e i s the same d e s i r e to instruct

found in a l l the a u t h o r ' s w r i t i n g s . This i n s t r u c t i v e nature usually

manifests itself in the s a t i r e the works c o n t a i n . F i e l d i n g experimented

c o n t i n u a l l y w i t h form, but h i s b a s i c s u b j e c t m a t t e r , and what may be

c a l l e d h i s moral p o s i t i o n , remained u n a l t e r e d . He was a c i v i c - m i n d e d

w r i t e r , a man p r e o c c u p i e d w i t h the s o c i e t y around him. He was a product

of h i s a g e , a p e r f e c t example of the Augustan i d e a l of the p u b l i c man.

As such a l l h i s works were e s s e n t i a l l y concerned w i t h c o n t r a s t i n g the

p o s s i b i l i t i e s t h a t e x i s t e d f o r man as a r a t i o n a l b e i n g w i t h the folly

t h a t he a c t u a l l y committed. He a t t a c k e d v i c e in a l l its forms, focussing

p a r t i c u l a r l y on the misuse of reason — f a l s e t a s t e s in l e a r n i n g , the

abuse of knowledge - - any d e p a r t u r e from what was g e n e r a l l y a c c e p t e d as

the norm o f d e c e n t , r e s p o n s i b l e humanity. In h i s e a r l y w r i t i n g s satire

was an end in i t s e l f , the exposure and r i d u c u l e of s a t i r i c t a r g e t s was

the u l t i m a t e i n t e n t i o n of the a r t i s t . And in the n o v e l s , as in Tom

Jones f o r example, s a t i r e remains an i n t e g r a l p a r t of the work even

though it is f r e q u e n t l y used f o r the sake of the comic e f f e c t and l a c k s

the f i e r c e r q u a l i t i e s of formal satire.

P a s s i n g from the damning i n d i c t m e n t of Jonathan W i l d to the delight-

ful warmth and humour of Tom Jones would seem to o f f e r a study in o p -

posites. One i s formal s a t i r e , the o t h e r a " c o m i c romance," or a " c o m i c

e p i c poem in p r o s e . " However, the s p i r i t of s a t i r e pervades even

F i e l d i n g ' s comic n o v e l s . The change t h a t F i e l d i n g underwent from drama-

t i s t and s a t i r i s t to n o v e l i s t was n e i t h e r a p a r t i c u l a r l y sudden nor a

r a d i c a l one. He grew i n t o the n o v e l i s t ' s r o l e w i t h lengthy works like

A Journey From Th i s Wor1d to the Next and Jonathan W i l d , and in so d o i n g

g e n t l y shrugged o f f the s t r i c t e r c o n f i n e s of formal s a t i r e without ever

 3

c o m p l e t e l y abandoning the r o l e of s a t i r i s t . With the g r e a t e r freedom

the novel a l l o w e d him, F i e l d i n g c o u l d indulge h i m s e l f in the t h i n g s he

d i d best — weave h i s intricate p l o t s , provide lengthy, d e t a i l e d de-

s c r i p t i o n of c h a r a c t e r , and lead h i s reader i n t o s u r p r i s e a f t e r sur-

p r i s e — and s t i l l s a t i s f y h i s d e s i r e to w r i t e i n s t r u c t i v e l y , to e x -

pound a moral doctrine.

Joseph And rews, Tom J o n e s , and Amelia r e p r e s e n t a more compre-

h e n s i v e statement of F i e l d i n g ' s a l r e a d y w e l l e s t a b l i s h e d views on life

and human n a t u r e . They a r e a l l e s s e n t i a l l y moral w o r k s , but it is in

the two comic n o v e l s t h a t F i e l d i n g most o f t e n employs s a t i r e as an i n -

strument in h i s ' m o r a l i z i n g . ' Ame1ia, his last novel, i s the s e v e r e s t ,

a n g r i e s t s o c i a l comment F i e l d i n g makes, but it is, paradoxically, his

least s a t i r i c a l . The b i t t e r n e s s of Amel ia is f a r removed from the

satiric indictment of Jonathan W i l d . In the l a t t e r , the highwayman-hero

emerges as a t h r e a t e n i n g satanic figure, one who i s so c o m p l e t e l y evil

t h a t he must be h a t e d , yet one so cunning and d e c e p t i v e t h a t he must

be f e a r e d and even a d m i r e d . Jonathan W i l d i s b r i l l i a n t s a t i r e , Amelia

suggests a somewhat more f r u s t r a t e d F i e l d i n g lamenting s o c i e t y ' s e v i l s

in s e n t i m e n t a l fashion. It would seem t h a t , w i t h each novel he w r o t e ,

F i e l d i n g drew f u r t h e r away from the pure s a t i r e t h a t marked h i s earlier

works and c l o s e r to a form o f moral didacticism.

The t r a n s f o r m a t i o n from s a t i r i s t to n o v e l i s t involves a s h i f t in

the a r t i s t ' s perspective. A change of focus o c c u r s . The a u t h o r no

l o n g e r emphasizes s o l e l y the e v i l in h i s s o c i e t y . The s a t i r i s t exposes

the f o l l y he w i t n e s s e s around him, the n o v e l i s t adds new dimensions

until the exposure of v i c e becomes o n l y p a r t o f a much l a r g e r p l a n t h a t

involves a portrayal o f good as w e l l as e v i l . However, because the

instructive satire is c e n t r a l to the n o v e l i s t ' s p u r p o s e , I t h i n k one

can view F i e l d i n g ' s n o v e l s as h a v i n g a s a t i r i c core.

In h i s n o v e l s , F i e l d i n g is no l e s s i n t e n t upon p o i n t i n g out man's

shortcomings and e x p o s i n g h y p o c r i s y in a l l i t s forms than he was in

his p o l i t i c a l farces or his s a t i r i c a l essays. His a p p r o a c h , however,

is r a d i c a l l y d i f f e r e n t . The s a t i r i s t s i n g l e s out h i s t a r g e t s and s e t s

out to d e s t r o y them w i t h any means a t h i s d i s p o s a l , the n o v e l i s t , on

the o t h e r hand, i s not c o n f i n e d to d e s c r i b i n g the e v i l in h i s society,

he can be as l i b e r a l w i t h h i s p r a i s e as w i t h h i s c r i t i c i s m . One modern

view of the s a t i r i s t is t h a t he p r e s e n t s the reader w i t h the evil,

blowing it up in a l l i t s u g l i n e s s in an attempt to convey the terrifying

threat he f e e l s it r e p r e s e n t s to s o c i e t y . By c o n c e n t r a t i n g on the evil

the s a t i r i s t i m p l i e s what the a l t e r n a t i v e , the norm o f b e h a v i o u r , should

be. For F i e l d i n g , and f o r w r i t e r s o f the e i g h t e e n t h c e n t u r y on the

w h o l e , t h i s norm was remarkably c o n s i s t e n t . It had i t s roots in Chris-

trian tradition and was based on laws d i c t a t e d by n a t u r e and by r e a s o n .

It proposed a r e f i n e d , c u l t u r e d , d i g n i f i e d way of l i f e as an end to be

d e s i r e d by any man w i t h the power and the w i l l to r e a s o n .

In formal s a t i r e t h i s norm is i m p l i e d o r s t a t e d more than illus-

trated. In Jonathan W i l d t h i s i s the c a s e . The r e a d e r ' s a t t e n t i o n is

rivetted on the e v i l personified in W i l d h i m s e l f . The H e a r t f r e e s enter

the l i s t s in w h i t e armour, so to speak, but they a r e representative

f i g u r e s o f good, used o n l y to emphasize the thorough e v i l of the h i g h -

 5

wayman. The norm i s i m p l i e d r a t h e r than p o r t r a y e d — somewhere between

the p o l e s t h a t H e a r t f r e e and W i l d r e p r e s e n t l i e s the d e s i r e d norm of

b e h a v i o u r f o r the common man. The s a t i r i s t ' s way is to f o c u s on the

e v i l which he i s t r y i n g to warn h i s readers o f . He p r e s e n t s a v i v i d ,

frightening image of the l u r k i n g d a n g e r . F i e l d i n g d e p a r t s from this

method in h i s n o v e l s . For here the a u t h o r g i v e s us as h i s central

f i g u r e s c h a r a c t e r s l i k e Parson Adams o r Tom Jones who a r e themselves

m i x t u r e s of good and e v i l , and t h e r e f o r e more than s y m b o l i c f i g u r e s .

In t h e i r a d v e n t u r e s , Adams and Tom c o n s t a n t l y come in c o n t a c t w i t h

f o r c e s of good as w e l l as e v i l , a l l o w i n g the n a r r a t o r to p o r t r a y the

b l e s s i n g s of the former as w e l l as reveal the u g l i n e s s of the latter.

What i s p r e s e n t e d i s not the s a t i r i s t ' s w o r l d of b l a c k and w h i t e , but

the m u l t i - c o l o u r e d w o r l d of the n o v e l i s t . In F i e l d i n g ' s n o v e l s i t is

not an i m p l i e d norm, but an i l l u s t r a t e d one, i t i s not s t a t e d , it is

p o r t r a y e d through example.

As a d r a m a t i s t , however, F i e l d i n g ' s concern was w i t h the e v i l itself,

not w i t h p o r t r a y i n g an a l t e r n a t i v e to the e v i l as he was l a t e r to do in

his novels. In h i s d r a m a t i c c a r e e r and in h i s f i r s t attempts at prose

Fielding utilized all the t o o l s of the s a t i r i s t ' s trade. His e a r l y

f a r c e s and b u r l e s q u e s enjoyed immense s u c c e s s . In The A u t h o r ' s Farce

and The Tragedy of T r a g e d i e s , F i e l d i n g r i d i c u l e d the t a s t e s o f a

f a s h i o n a b l e s o c i e t y which was l a v i s h i n g both i t s time and p r a i s e on

frivolous entertainments. Pantomine, t u m b l i n g e x h i b i t i o n s , and Italian

opera were among the d i v e r s i o n s most l o u d l y applauded by the beau monde.

The young d r a m a t i s t was a l i g n i n g h i m s e l f w i t h w r i t e r s l i k e Dryden and

 6

Pope and Gay in waging a war a g a i n s t d u l l n e s s as d i s p l a y e d in d e c l i n i n g

literary s t a n d a r d s and f a l s e t a s t e s . His c o n c e r n , as had been t h a t of

the famous S c r i b l e r u s C1ub(1713)> was w i t h the general misuse o f r e a s o n .

His p l a y s depended l a r g e l y on the contemporaneity o f the s a t i r e they

contained for their success. They were w i t t y and s h a r p l y s a t i r i c a l ,

f o r they were w r i t t e n in a c r i t i c a l a g e , one in which s o c i a l habits

were p e r p e t u a l l y s a t i r i z e d and l i t e r a t u r e c o n s t a n t l y c r i t i c i z e d . Much

of the s a t i r e o f the e a r l y p l a y s was d i r e c t e d a t the l i t e r a r y scene,

particularly a t the hack w r i t e r s of Grub S t r e e t .

In P a s q u i n F i e l d i n g found a new f o r t e — p o l i t i c a l satire. He had

i nt roduced pol 11 i ca1 s a t i re in the ea r 1 i e r Don Qu i xote i n Engl and w i t h

f a v o u r a b l e r e s u l t s , but s t i l l the r e c e p t i o n of P a s q u i n exceeded a l l

expectation. As in h i s o t h e r p o l i t i c a l f a r c e s F i e l d i n g s e t out to

expose the c o r r u p t i o n t h a t e x i s t e d in the Walpole a d m i n i s t r a t i o n , but

like all good s a t i r e F i e l d i n g ' s i r o n i c denouncement becomes u n i v e r s a l

in i t s a p p l i c a t i o n u n t i l the t a r g e t i s no l o n g e r one v i l l a i n but all

villains, it i s not j u s t the c o r r u p t i o n and g r a f t of one government,

but o f a l l governments.

When F i e l d i n g turned t o p r o s e he c o n t i n u e d w r i t i n g in a s a t i r i c

vein. Many of h i s t a r g e t s remained the same, but he began to experiment

w i t h new forms, the p e r s o n a , e p i s t l e s , dream v i s i o n s , mock s c h o l a r s h i p ,

b u r l e s q u e c r i t i c i s m , mock encomia and numerous o t h e r s . Several of his

works in t h i s p e r i o d were c a s t in the mold o f L u c i a n , and many were not

u n l i k e the essays of S w i f t both in the p o l i s h o f t h e i r p r o s e and in

general t o n e . In t h i s p e r i o d a l s o F i e l d i n g began w r i t i n g moral essays

 7

on s u b j e c t s t h a t were t o become major themes in h i s n o v e l s , and the

moralist in him began to emerge a l o n g s i d e the satirist.

Jonathan W i l d r e p r e s e n t s a c u r i o u s landmark in F i e l d i n g ' s career.

It is a c u l m i n a t i o n of the type o f formal satire he had been w r i t i n g

in h i s p l a y s and e s s a y s , and a t the same time i t c o n t a i n s many elements

t h a t look forward to h i s c a r e e r as n o v e l i s t . C e r t a i n l y Jonathan W i l d

represents F i e l d i n g ' s most s u s t a i n e d formal satire. W i l d , the anti-

h e r o , emerges as a t h r e a t to any s o c i e t y . He is the 'great man , 1

the

politician, the c u t t h r o a t businessman in f a c t , he is any person

who has r i s e n to power by t r a m p l i n g on the r i g h t s and f e e l i n g s of others.

He is the m a n i p u l a t o r , the man who p l a y s w i t h human l i v e s as i f they were

designed s p e c i f i c a l l y f o r h i s own u s e . The f e e l i n g s of o t h e r s mean

nothing to him f o r he is concerned w i t h W i l d and W i l d a l o n e . His very

immorality i s the source o f h i s s t r e n g t h , and i t is s o c i e t y ' s inability

to cope w i t h j u s t such an inhuman p r o d u c t that i s so frightening.

Jonathan W i l d is r e l e n t l e s s , b i t t e r s a t i r e . There is a s i n g l e n e s s o f

purpose in the work t h a t is r e m i n i s c e n t o f S w i f t ' s most powerful satires.

Yet in s p i t e o f t h i s , t h e r e a r e elements in Jonathan W i l d which

p o i n t forward to Joseph Andrews and Tom J o n e s . Most o b v i o u s among

these s i m i l a r i t i e s i s F i e l d i n g ' s use o f the m o c k - h e r o i c . He had of

course made use o f t h i s d e v i c e in Tom Thumb, but it is in the s t o r y of

W i l d t h a t one sees F i e l d i n g u s i n g the e p i c s i m i l e and i n f l a t e d language

w i t h some o f the same e f f e c t t h a t he was l a t e r to use them in h i s comic

novels.
 8

With Joseph Andrews F i e l d i n g adopted a new mode of w r i t i n g . What

began as a r e a c t i o n to R i c h a r d s o n ' s Pamela e v o l v e d i n t o a unique form

of moral s a t i r e which F i e l d i n g couched in what he termed a 'mock e p i c

poem in p r o s e ' . His r o l e i s no l o n g e r s t r i c t l y t h a t of s a t i r i s t , for

as n o v e l i s t he must be a f a r more g e n i a l e n t e r t a i n e r . In h i s comic

n o v e l s the s a t i r e f u n c t i o n s f o r the sake o f the comedy r a t h e r than for

the s a t i r i c e f f e c t alone. This is p a r t i c u l a r l y true in the case of

character p o r t r a i t s , but even when the i s s u e s a r e l a r g e r , when F i e l d i n g

is a t t a c k i n g a g r e a t e r e v i l , when s o c i e t y itself i s b e i n g c a l l e d to t a s k

f o r s i n s committed, much of the s t i n g of the s a t i r e i s removed s i m p l y

because echoes of laughter are s t i l l ringing in the r e a d e r ' s e a r s . It

i s good-«natured s a t i r e w i t h the exposure and the r i d i c u l e c a r r i e d out

in the most c o n g e n i a l f a s h i o n . However, even though the b i t e of the

satire is o f t e n reduced to a p l a y f u l n i p , the s p i r i t of s a t i r e still

pervades these n o v e l s . The a r c h - v i l l a in remains the h y p o c r i t e , the p r e -

tender. P r i d e and v a n i t y in a l l their f o o l i s h forms a r e continually

s i n g l e d out and unmasked. It is d e l i g h t f u l to t r a c e the e x p o s u r e , to

see j u s t how deep F i e l d i n g ' s u n d e r s t a n d i n g of human n a t u r e penetrated.

His s a t i r i c t a r g e t s remained remarkably c o n s t a n t throughout his career,

in keeping w i t h h i s f i r m moral v i e w s .

It is my i n t e n t i o n to d i s c u s s a number o f F i e l d i n g ' s works, con-

c e n t r a t i n g on the s a t i r e they c o n t a i n . As a d r a m a t i s t and a w r i t e r of

e s s a y s F i e l d i n g deserves to be ranked as a s k i l l e d s a t i r i s t , and to

this reader a t l e a s t , Jonathan W i l d remains one of the f i e r c e s t , most

s u c c e s s f u l l y s u s t a i n e d s a t i r e s of the p e r i o d . In t r a c i n g F i e l d i n g ' s
 9

c a r e e r from s a t i r i s t to n o v e l i s t it is i n t e r e s t i n g to note the unique

p o s i t i o n the t a l e of W i l d o c c u p i e s . It i s the best of h i s formal

s a t i r e s and at the same time it c o n t a i n s many foreshadowings of his

latent power as a n o v e l i s t . When F i e l d i n g turned to the novel he r e -

mained a s a t i r i s t at heart. A l t h o u g h he was no l o n g e r w r i t i n g formal

s a t i r e , and the u l t i m a t e effect of h i s two e p i c s o f the road was comic

rather than s a t i r i c , still t h e s e n o v e l s were f i l l e d with instructive

s a t i r e c a l c u l a t e d towards d e s c r i b i n g o r e s t a b l i s h i n g a mode of moral

conduct.
 A W r i t e r of 'Dramatick Satire 1

Henry F i e l d i n g began h i s l i t e r a r y c a r e e r as a d r a m a t i s t . His

comedies, f a r c e s , b u r l e s q u e s , and b a l l a d operas would be s u f f i c i e n t to

secure him a p o s i t i o n in E n g l i s h l e t t e r s even i f f a t e had not steered

him towards the n o v e l s on which most of h i s p o p u l a r fame i s based. In

the n i n e - y e a r span from 1728 u n t i l the L i c e n s i n g Act c u t s h o r t his

d r a m a t i c c a r e e r in 1737, F i e l d i n g produced twenty-odd p l a y s , many of

which, 1 i k e Don Q,u i xote i n Eng 1 and , Tom Thumb or Pasqu i n , enjoyed

immense p o p u l a r i t y . He i s the s i n g l e most important figure in the

t h e a t e r of the 1730 s. 1
The contemporaneity of h i s p l a y s makes them

i n v a l u a b l e s o c i a l documents. With h i s v i g o r o u s s t y l e he r e c o r d s London

life, e s p e c i a l l y t h a t of the beau monde, in language t h a t is b r i s k and

captivating. F i e l d i n g d i s p l a y e d the a g e ' s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c concern w i t h

politics and f a s h i o n , and w i t h the general s t a t e o f s o c i e t y in regard

to c u l t u r e — p a r t i c u l a r l y the much f e a r e d d e g e n e r a t i o n of the standards

of literature. All h i s comedies of f a s h i o n a b l e l i f e and h i s political

 11

and t h e a t r i c a l burlesques r e f l e c t h i s concern w i t h s o c i e t y and its

many f r a i l t i e s and v i c e s .

In the b u r l e s q u e s of The A u t h o r ' s F a r c e , Tom Thumb, Pasqu i n , and

The H i s t o r i c a l R e g i s t e r , F i e l d i n g c r e a t e d a genre f o r himself, the

genre which he cal.led ' D r a m a t i c k S a t i r e . 1

The A u t h o r ' s Farce was f i r s t

performed on March 30, 1730. It was h i s t h i r d d r a m a t i c attempt^ and

gave many h i n t s of the a u t h o r ' s l a t e n t power as a s a t i r i s t . By h i s

c h o i c e of the pseudonymn " S c r i b l e r u s S e c u n d u s , " F i e l d i n g i n d i c a t e d his

satirical d e s i g n , f o r he was p l a y f u l l y a s s o c i a t i n g h i s name w i t h Pope

and S w i f t , the founders of the famous S c r i b l e r u s Club whose members

took i t upon themselves to r i d i c u l e s o c i a l and l i t e r a r y abuses.

The p l a y is d i v i d e d i n t o two p a r t s , the f i r s t p o r t r a y s the l o t of

a young p l a y w r i g h t , L u c k l e s s , who is dependent upon t h e a t r i c a l managers

and b o o k s e l l e r s f o r h i s l i v e l i h o o d , and the second p a r t , "The P l e a s u r e s

of the Town," d e p i c t s the r e h e a r s a l of a d r a m a t i c e n t e r t a i n m e n t ridi-

c u l i n g the amusements of the f a s h i o n a b l e w o r l d . It was the t a s t e of

h i s s o c i e t y , more than a n y t h i n g e l s e , t h a t F i e l d i n g was h o l d i n g up to

public censure, for the f a s h i o n a b l e e n t e r t a i n m e n t o f the day c o n s i s t e d

of I t a l i a n o p e r a , f a r c e s , pantomines, t u m b l i n g e x h i b i t i o n s and bombastic

tragedies. The drama — a t least in the hands o f w r i t e r s l i k e Gay and

F i e l d i n g — shared w i t h n o n - d r a m a t i c l i t e r a t u r e the e a r l y eighteenth-

Following L£ve_jj]_Sevej^^ and The Temple Beau (1730).

 12

c e n t u r y d i s p o s i t i o n towards s a t i r e , and t h e r e was no b e t t e r place to

show up the a b s u r d i t i e s and f r i v o l o u s entertainments being a s s o c i a t e d

w i t h the stage than on the stage i t s e l f . F i e l d i n g f e a r e d t h a t h i s age

was one of c u l t u r a l d e c l i n e and t h a t t h i s d e g e n e r a t i o n was nowhere more

o b v i o u s than in the l i t e r a t u r e and drama p o p u l a r w i t h the s o c i a l elite.

The f a c t t h a t these s p e c t a c l e s , the puppet shows and pantomines, for

example, were so p o p u l a r , was the cause f o r F i e l d i n g ' s o u t r a g e and the

o b j e c t of h i s a t t a c k in The A u t h o r ' s Farce. Because o f t h e i r popularity,

t h e s e d i s p l a y s were taken up by the t h e a t r i c a l managers s t r i c t l y as good

business ventures. No concern was shown f o r a r t i s t i c m e r i t . However,

many a r t i s t s r e g i s t e r e d a l o u d , c l e a r p r o t e s t a g a i n s t t h i s d e c l i n e of

literary s t a n d a r d s , and F i e l d i n g ' s p r o t e s t s were as a r t i c u l a t e as any.

On o p e n i n g , the p l a y had as i t s immediate s a t i r i c a l targets Col l e y

Cibber and Robert W i l k s , both actor-managers of Drury Lane. In the re-

v i s e d v e r s i o n a change was made in the s u b s t i t u t i o n of T h e o p h i l u s C i b b e r

f o r W i l k s — a change which must have added much in the way of comic

enjoyment, for F i e l d i n g ' s a u d i e n c e seemed to l i k e n o t h i n g more than

s e e i n g the C i b b e r s r i d i c u l e d . While such treatment was q u i t e personal

and a t times even b i t t e r , it still rose above mere abuse to s e r v e the

l a r g e r purpose of the s a t i r e . As one c r i t i c points out.

They (the C i b b e r s ) a r e made to s e r v e a s y m b o l i c f u n c t i o n s i m i l a r

to t h a t served l a t e r by Col ley C i b b e r in the r e v i s e d Dune i a d ,
they a r e types o f the t h e a t e r manager, the d i c t a t o r o f d r a m a t i c
a r t in t h a t time of l i t e r a r y d e p r a v i t y , a t once p e r c e p t i v e
judges o f the p u b l i c t a s t e and h e a d s t r o n g , v a i n t y r a n t s who
 13

p r i d e themselves on c a p r i c i o u s c o n d u c t .

The f a c t t h a t the C i b b e r s were w e l l known to the audience heightened

the s a t i r e ' s immediate a p p e a l , but on the l a r g e r s c a l e they were s t o c k

v i l l a i n s , j u s t as young L u c k l e s s , the impoverished p l a y w r i g h t , repre-

sented a t y p i c a l v i c t i m of t h e i r villainy.

Witmore admonishes L u c k l e s s f o r a t t e m p t i n g to be a w r i t e r in such

an a g e ;

S'death! in an age of l e a r n i n g and t r u e p o l i t e n e s s , when a

man might succeed by h i s m e r i t , t h e r e would be some e n c o u r a g e -
ment. But now, when p a r t y and p r e j u d i c e c a r r y a l l b e f o r e them,
when l e a r n i n g i s d e c r i e d , w i t not u n d e r s t o o d , when the t h e a t r e s
a r e puppet-shows, and the comedians b a l l a d - s i n g e r s , when f o o l s
lead the town, would a man t h i n k to t h r i v e by h i s w i t If 7

thou must w r i t e , w r i t e nonsense, w r i t e o p e r a s , w r i t e H u r l o -

thrumbos, s e t up an o r a t o r y and preach nonsense, and you may
meet w i t h encouragement enough. Be p r o f a n e , be s c u r r i l o u s ,
be immodest...3

The angry Witmore c o n t i n u e s in t h i s v e i n , a t t a c k i n g in h i s outburst

s o l d i e r s , p h y s i c i a n s , l a w y e r s , c o u r t i e r s , and f l a t t e r i n g poets. He

damns the p r a c t i c e of patronage by t e l l i n g L u c k l e s s i t i s the o n l y way

t o succeed in l e t t e r s in such an age; "If thou w i l t , w r i t e a g a i n s t

all these r e a s o n s , get a p a t r o n , be pimp t o some w o r t h l e s s man of quality,

John L o f t i s , Comedy and S o c i e t y from Congreve to F i e l d i n g (Stanford

U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1959), p. 4 0 .
3
The A u t h o r ' s F a r c e , The Complete Works o f Henry F i e l d i n g , e d .
W i l l i a m E. Henley (New Y o r k , 1902), V I I I , 204, A c t I, v. - A l l F i e l d i n g
c i t a t i o n s w i l l be taken from the Henley e d i t i o n w i t h the e x c e p t i o n of
r e f e r e n c e s to the P r e f a c e to the M i s e e l 1 a n i e s in my d i s c u s s i o n of
Jonathan W i l d .
 14

w r i t e p a n e g y r i c s on him, f l a t t e r him w i t h as many v i r t u e s as he has

v i c e s " ( V I I I, 205).

L u c k l e s s s attempts
1
to s o l i c i t a publisher provide dramatic

justification for the introduction of scenes from l i t e r a r y Grub Street.

Here, a l o n g w i t h the d e v a s t a t i n g r i d i c u l e of the C i b b e r s , who appear

as the M a r p l a y s , t h e r e i s a d e s c r i p t i o n o f a b o o k s e l l e r ' s shop w i t h

s e v e r a l hacks busy a t t a s k s a s s i g n e d by t h e i r m a s t e r , the bookseller.

Fielding protests the c o n c e p t i o n of l i t e r a t u r e as a commodity w i t h a

marketable v a l u e , suggesting that t h i s c o n c e p t i o n , h e l d in the p l a y by

both the b o o k s e l l e r and the t h e a t e r managers, is a c o n t r i b u t i n g factor

to the p r e v a i l i n g literary degeneracy. With c h a r a c t e r s like Bookweight,

Dash, Q u i b b l e and B l o t p a g e , F i e l d i n g p r o v i d e s a comical rendering of

the hack w r i t e r . To these c h a r a c t e r s literature i s a commodity to be

supplied in the q u i c k e s t , but not n e c e s s a r i l y most e f f i c i e n t , manner

possible. Greek m o t t o e s , L a t i n m o t t o e s , even second-hand mottoes out

of the S p e c t a t o r , a l l a r e m a r k e t a b l e goods to be bought and s o l d a c c o r d i n g

to the law o f s u p p l y and demand. F i e l d i n g a t t a c k s in a s l i g h t l y more

jocular f a s h i o n than Pope those people who buy books merely f o r show.

Compare P o p e ' s Moral Essay IV;

His Study! w i t h what A u t h o r s i s i t s t o r ' d ?
In Books, not A u t h o r s , c u r i o u s is my L o r d ,
To a l l t h e i r dated Backs he t u r n s you round,
These A l d u s p r i n t e d , those Du S u e i l has bound.
Lo Some a r e V e l l o m , and the r e s t as good
For a l l h i s L o r d s h i p knows, but they a r e Wood. (133-138)

E p i s t l e s to Several Persons (Moral E s s a y s ) , - Twickenham e d i t i o n , e d .

F. W. Bateson (London, 1951), pp. 145-146. C i t a t i o n s from Pope in my
paper a r e to t h i s e d i t i o n .
 15

Bookweight, as a s e l l e r of books< and one who knows the m a r k e t ' s trends,

i s e x p l i c i t about the k i n d of books t h a t s e l l and those t h a t do n o t ;

Give me a good handsome l a r g e volume, w i t h a f u l l p r o m i s i n g

t i t l e - p a g e a t the head of i t , p r i n t e d on a good paper and l e t t e r ,
the whole w e l l bound and g i l t , and I ' l l warrant i t s s e l l i n g —
You have the common e r r o r of a u t h o r s , who t h i n k people buy
books to read — No, n o , books a r e o n l y bought to f u r n i s h
l i b r a r i e s , as p i c t u r e s and g l a s s e s , and beds and c h a i r s , are
f o r o t h e r rooms.
(VI I, 221, Act I I , v)

F i e l d i n g has genuine fun w i t h the C i b b e r s w h i l e a t the same time

p o i n t i n g out the t h r e a t such p e o p l e r e p r e s e n t to the s t a n d a r d s of his

art. Marplay j u n i o r t e l l s us what t h e i r role in t h i s whole b u s i n e s s

of s t a g e and drama i s ;

My f a t h e r and I, s i r , are a c o u p l e of p o e t i c a l t a i l o r s ; when

a> p l a y i s brought u s , we c o n s i d e r i t as a t a i l o r does h i s
c o a t , we cut i t , s i r , we cut i t , and l e t me t e l l you,we have
the e x a c t measure of the town, we know how to f i t t h e i r t a s t e .
(VI I, 207, A c t I, v i )

We a r e made t o v i s u a l i z e t h i s pompous young a s s , Marplay j u n i o r , in a l l

h i s v a n i t y and s i l l i n e s s , b o a s t i n g o f h i s one " s m a l l s a l l y into

Parnassus," " a s o r t of f l y i n g leap o v e r H e l i c o n " ( V I I I, 207). Young

M a r p l a y ' s one attempt had been damned by the c r i t i c s so he w i s e l y turned

to more rewarding p u r s u i t s . The scene between f a t h e r and son is filled

w i t h a good-natured but e x t r e m e l y p e r s o n a l a t t a c k on the h a p l e s s p a i r .

Marplay s e n i o r r e f u s e s to a c c e p t L u c k l e s s ' s p l a y not because of any

particular fault i t may p o s s e s s , but because t h e r e is n o t h i n g " c o e r c i v e "

to h i s " p a s s i o n s " in i t . Moreover, he "confesses to h i s son when q u e s -

t i o n e d about the p l a y .
 16

It may be a very good o n e , f o r aught I know; but I am r e s o l v e d

s i n c e the town w i l l not r e c e i v e any of mine, they s h a l l have
none from any o t h e r . I'll keep them to t h e i r old diet.
(VIII, 215, A c t I I , i i)

With a l l the s u r f a c e l a u g h t e r and g a i e t y of the f a r c e t h e r e is

the danger of m i s s i n g , o r a t l e a s t of s h r u g g i n g o f f , the s e r i o u s o v e r -

tones t h a t accompany i t . Here the m a l i c i o u s r e a s o n i n g behind this

p a i r ' s a c t i o n s , t o g e t h e r w i t h the s e l f i s h n e s s r e v e a l e d in t h e i r keeping

back a u t h o r s who show any m e r i t , a r e the e v i l s the s a t i r i s t is pointing

at. The s a t i r i c e f f e c t d e r i v e s from the s i t u a t i o n itself. The d r a m a t i c

image i s t h e r e , a l i v e , on s t a g e b e f o r e the a u d i e n c e . The undercutting

and d e f l a t i o n of the image, as w e l l as the exposure of the foulness

and h y p o c r i s y t h a t 1 i e beneath the s u r f a c e of things-as-they-seem-to-be,

a r e a c c o m p l i s h e d through d i a l o g u e and a c t i o n . The irony and the satire

is usually b l a t a n t l y o b v i o u s , but the l a c k of s u b t l e t y does not detract

from the f i n a l effect. As the s e r i o u s is reduced to the a b s u r d , the

whole s i t u a t i o n takes on s u g g e s t i o n s of the r i d i c u l o u s and the satirist's

role is f u l f i l l e d . The p l a y i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d by a l i g h t n e s s of tone,

but even w i t h i t s d e c e i v i n g a i r of b a n t e r , the s e r i o u s n e s s of the

author's implications i s never doubted.

The puppet show, "The P l e a s u r e s o f the Town," i s a d r a m a t i z a t i o n

of the major theme of the Dune i a d . Luckless t e l l s us " t h e c h i e f b u s i n e s s

is the e l e c t i o n of an a r c h - p o e t , o r , as o t h e r s c a l l him, a poet laureate,

to the Goddess of Nonsense"(VI I I, 228). Those c o n t e n d i n g f o r the

1 a u r e a t e s h i p , Don T r a g e d i o , S i r F a r c i c a l Comic, Dr. O r a t o r , Signior

Opera, and Monsieur P a n t o n i n e , a r e p e r s o n i f i c a t i o n s o f the r u l i n g London

pleasures. L i k e Pope, a l t h o u g h w i t h l e s s e m p h a s i s , F i e l d i n g a l l u d e s

in d i a l o g u e to the i n c r e a s i n g prominence o f Nonsense (or Dulness) as

the e x t e n s i o n o f the p l e a s u r e s of the b u s i n e s s community t o the f a s h i o n -

a b l e end o f town; "My l o r d mayor has shortened the time o f Bartholomew

Fair in S m i t h f i e l d , " e x p l a i n s a poet to a b o o k s e l l e r , " a n d so they a r e

r e s o l v e d to keep i t a l l the y e a r round a t the o t h e r End o f the town"

( V I I I , 235).

The p o s i t i o n o f a r c h - p o e t o r poet l a u r e a t e is ultimately filled

by the ghost o f S i g n i o r O p e r a . Queen Nonsense — l i k e a l l o t h e r foolish

women — i s enamoured w i t h Opera and r e s o l v e d t h a t he s h a l l have the

crown. The i m p l i c a t i o n i s t h a t absurd as some o f the o t h e r entertain-

ments may b e , t h e r e i s r e a l l y no c o n t e s t . Opera i s most e n t i t l e d to

the p o s i t i o n b e s i d e Queen Nonsense. M r s . Novel s i n g s h i s v i c t o r y song.

A i r XX Away each meek p r e t e n d e r f l i e s ,

Opera thou hast gained the p r i z e .
Nonsense g r a t e f u l s t i l l must own,
That thou best s u p p o r t ' s t her t h r o n e . ( V I I I , 252)

The ending of the p l a y b u r l e s q u e s a l l happy endings wrought through

i m p o s s i b l e chance and c o i n c i d e n c e . A f t e r the r e h e a r s a l of the puppet-

show we r e t u r n to the s t o r y o f L u c k l e s s and H a r r i e t , but i t is only a

formality. The reader suddenly becomes aware t h a t he has not l e f t the

realm o f Nonsense a t a l l but has o n l y moved to another p a r t o f her k i n g -

dom... In a w h i r l w i n d o f d i s c o v e r y i t is revealed that Luckless is a c t u a l l y

the long l o s t p r i n c e o f Bantam, who had o n l y been t r a c e d by the ' l u c k i e s t '

chance. At t h i s t i m e l y moment a message a r r i v e s announcing the death

of h i s f a t h e r , the k i n g , so L u c k l e s s i s now Henry I, K i n g of Bantam.

 18

But i t does not end t h e r e . Punch, one of the a c t o r s of the puppet-show

r e v e a l s t h a t he i s "no common f e l l o w , " t h a t he i s in r e a l i t y Mrs. Money-

wood's son and the p r i n c e of B r e n t f o r d . Mrs. Moneywood, the Queen of

this land o f B r e n t f o r d , had been f o r c e d to f l e e w i t h her c h i l d r e n when

the k i n g was o v e r t h r o w n . T h i s makes H a r r i e t p r i n c e s s of B r e n t f o r d . Even

J o a n , who is d i s c o v e r e d to be P u n c h ' s w i f e , finds herself a king's

daughter. It i s the h a p p i e s t o f a l l happy endings w i t h everyone p a r t

of one b i g happy r o y a l f a m i l y . The p 1 a y - w i t h i n - t h e - p l a y merges w i t h

the p l a y itself and a l l i s nonsense. The p r e p o s t e r o u s e n d i n g p r o v i d e s

a f i t t i n g c l i m a x f o r the s a t i r e . What i s i m p l i e d i s t h a t the t a s t e s of

s o c i e t y a r e no l e s s p r e p o s t e r o u s than the p l a y ' s ending and the court

of Nonsense i s the r u l i n g c o u r t of the day. It is the a u d i e n c e even

more than the e n t e r t a i n m e n t s themselves t h a t d e s e r v e s the censure o f the

satirist. It is they whom he a t t a c k s in h i s p r o l o g u e .

L i k e the tame a n i m a l s designed f o r show,

You have your cues to c l a p , as they to bow,
Taught to commend, your judgements have no s h a r e ,
By chance you guess a r i g h t , by chance you e r r .
( V I I I , 193)

With The A u t h o r ' s Farce F i e l d i n g committed h i m s e l f to a r o l e he

was never r e a l l y to abandon, t h a t o f s o c i a l s a t i r i s t . The p l a y was o n l y

m i l d l y s u c c e s s f u l , but it i n d i c a t e d the d i r e c t i o n Fielding's talents were

to take.

The Tragedy of Traqed ies o r The L i f e and Death of Tom Thumb the

Great is F i e l d i n g ' s most s u c c e s s f u l b u r l e s q u e of h e r o i c t r a g e d y . The

play is f i l l e d with f l o r i d d i c t i o n , i m p o s s i b l e p l o t s and s i t u a t i o n s that

 19

a r e pregnant w i t h v i o l e n c e , superhuman c h a r a c t e r s , and l o f t y sentiments,

all of which a r e v u l g a r i z e d and exaggerated to a b s u r d i t y . Tom Thumb

was a t f i r s t performed a l o n g w i t h The A u t h o r ' s F a r c e , but u l t i m a t e l y it

became much more s u c c e s s f u l . As the brunt of the s a t i r e was d i r e c t e d

a t the type o f h e r o i c drama c u l t i v a t e d by Dryden, Banks and Lee and

their followers, the p l a y d i d not r e l y q u i t e so h e a v i l y on l o c a l his-

torical f a c t as d i d h i s p o l i t i c a l satires. The parody was the main

v e h i c l e of the a t t a c k , but F i e l d i n g s t i l l was a b l e to get in a few

thrusts a t h i s c o n t e m p o r a r i e s t h a t had n o t h i n g to do w i t h t h e i r writing

of h e r o i c tragedy.

In h i s o r i g i n a l p r e f a c e to the tragedy F i e l d i n g a g a i n made C i b b e r

one o f h i s v i c t i m s by p r a i s i n g h i m s e l f (as author) and h i s a c t o r s , and

then t h r o w i n g " l i t t l e Tom Thumb on the town" j u s t as the poet laureate

had thrown The Provoked Husband a t the f e e t of her M a j e s t y . " ' In the

a l t e r e d e d i t i o n of 1731> H. S c r i b l e r u s Secundus makes use i n s t e a d of

the l e a r n e d s t y l e of Dr. B e n t l e y and P r o f e s s o r Burmann o f Leyden. The

preface i t s e l f i s a m a s t e r p i e c e of s a t i r e and humor. The persona first

remarks on the d i v i d e d o p i n i o n c o n c e r n i n g the m e r i t o f the p l a y ;

W h i l s t some p u b l i c l y a f f i r m e d t h a t no author c o u l d produce

so f i n e a p i e c e but Mr. P , o t h e r s have w i t h as much vehem-
ence i n s i s t e d t h a t no one c o u l d w r i t e a n y t h i n g so bad but Mr.
F
(IX, 7)

W i l b u r L. C r o s s , The H i s t o r y o f Henry F i e l d i n g (New Haven, 1918),

I, 90.
 20

He mentions t h a t the tragedy had been c e l e b r a t e d with great applause

at Amsterdam where i t was presented under the t i t l e o f Mynheer Vander

Thumb, and r e c e i v e d with " t h a t reverent and s i l e n t a t t e n t i o n which

becometh an audience a t a deep t r a g e d y " ( I X , 7 ) . In t h i s work we begin

to sense the sheer exuberance and humor t h a t a r e so much a p a r t of

F i e l d i n g ' s most mature works — and of h i s s a t i r e . There is a new

p l a y f u l n e s s and control in t h i s i c o n i c p r e f a c e t h a t was not found in

The Author's Farce. H. Scriblerus Secundus t e l l s us t h a t t h e r e are two

reasons f o r h i s w r i t i n g the p r e f a c e . The first is out of a sense of

duty aroused by the f i r s t " s u r r e p t i t i o u s copy" t h a t had been p u b l i s h e d ,

and the second, he t e l l s us, i s the r e s u l t of

knowing myself more capable of doing j u s t i c e to our Author

than any o t h e r man, as I have given myself more p a i n s to a r r i v e
at a thorough understanding of t h i s l i t t l e p i e c e , having f o r
ten years t o g e t h e r read n o t h i n g e l s e , in which time, I t h i n k ,
I may modestly presume, with the he'lp of my E n g l i s h d i c t i o n a r y ,
to comprehend a l l the meaning of every word in i t .
(IX, 8)

He ignores the q u e s t i o n as to whether o r not the p i e c e was originally

written by Shakespeare, except to remark p o i n t e d l y t h a t i f i t had been

the work of such an eminent hand, i t s m e r i t would have been c o n s i d e r a b l y

g r e a t e r with many of the age who buy and commend what they read from

"an implicit faith in the author o n l y " ( l X , 9 ) . The narrator proceeds

to defend the tragedy a g a i n s t a l l a t t a c k s . He p r a i s e s i t s h i s t o r i c a l

accuracy, the essence o f the tragedy itself, the c h a r a c t e r s , the senti-

ment and diction. But h i s defense serves o n l y to undermine any chances

for credibility the p l a y might have possessed. Typical of t h i s d i s a s t r o u s

 21

p r o c e s s a r e h i s remarks about t r a g e d y . "What can be so proper for

tragedy as a s e t of b i g sounding w o r d s , so c o n t r i v e d t o g e t h e r as to

convey no meaning? which I s h a l l one day o r o t h e r prove to be the s u b -

lime of L o n g i n u s . " ( I X , 12)

S c r i b l e r u s damns h i m s e l f and the p l a y w i t h e v e r y s e n t e n c e . His

attempts a t p r a i s e have e x a c t l y the o p p o s i t e e f f e c t . He t e l l s us

about the author;

He is very r a r e l y w i t h i n s i g h t through the whole p l a y , e i t h e r

r i s i n g h i g h e r than the eye of your u n d e r s t a n d i n g can s o a r ,
o r s i n k i n g lower than i t c a r e t h to s t o o p .
(IX, 12)

The p r e f a c e s e t s the tone f o r the whole s a t i r e . Using a device popular

w i t h s a t i r i s t s of a l l a g e s , F i e l d i n g makes h i s persona a prime t a r g e t

for the s a t i r i c a t t a c k . In t h i s way he i n t r o d u c e s the a u d i e n c e to the

atmosphere of the r i d i c u l o u s b e f o r e even e n t e r i n g the p l a y p r o p e r . H.

S c r i b l e r u s Secundus i s the t y p i c a l hack w r i t e r , a man who d i s p l a y s the

f a l s e l e a r n i n g , p r e t e n s i o n and pomposity t h a t the s a t i r i s t detests.

The p e r s o n a s bland l a c k of s e n s i t i v i t y
1
i s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of the product

of Grub S t r e e t t h a t F i e l d i n g , a l o n g w i t h S w i f t and Pope, f e l t was l o w e r i n g

the s t a n d a r d s of the 1 i t e r a t u r e of the day.

T u r n i n g to the p l a y i t s e l f , we f i n d from b e g i n n i n g to end a r i c h

s u c c e s s i o n of b u r l e s q u e d e c l a m a t i o n s , h e r o i c o u t b u r s t s of t r a g i c or

tender p a s s i o n , and mock h e r o i c s i m i l e s . For almost e v e r y l i n e of this

F i e l d i n g r e f e r s u s , through the mock p e d a n t i c n o t e s , to a passage in

some h e r o i c tragedy w e l l known to the p l a y g o e r s of h i s t i m e . The opening

 22

l i n e s spoken by Doodle and Noodle a r e i n d i c a t i v e o f what i s to follow.

From the f i r s t ridiculous images of the sun " l i k e a beau in a new

birth-day s u i t " and n a t u r e wearing her " u n i v e r s a l grin," until the final

v i s i o n of K i n g , Queen, Huncamunca, N o o d l e , Doodle and C l e o r a a l l lying

" s c a t t e r ' d and o ' e r t h r o w n " l i k e a pack of c a r d s , the h e r o i c does not

stand a chance. The s i n g l e use of the word " g r i n " i s enough t o add a

note o f madness to the whole performance. The s u g g e s t i o n t h a t things

a r e f a r from normal becomes f a c t when Noodle r e p l i e s : " T h i s d a y , 0

Mr. Doodle, i s a day / Indeed! — A day, we never saw b e f o r e . 11

(IX, 18)

It is l i t e r a r y s l a p s t i c k w i t h the immediate e f f e c t being incredulous

laughter. In t h i s c a s e , however, the l a u g h t e r stems p a r t i a l l y from

the f a c t t h a t we r e a l i z e t h a t a f r i g h t e n i n g l y thin line i s drawn here

between the realm o f the absurd and t h a t of real i t y .

F i e l d i n g makes fun of a l l the c o n v e n t i o n s of h e r o i c t r a g e d y . His

h e r o , Tom Thumb, i s more than m o r t a l ; he is possessed of a "mountainous

soul." He is a f e r o c i o u s w a r r i o r whose name is used by the g i a n t nurses

to f r i g h t e n c h i l d r e n — but o f c o u r s e i t is i m p o s s i b l e to r e c o n c i l e any

of these h e r o i c a t t r i b u t e s w i t h the p i g m y - s i z e d Thumb. It is in the

language i t s e l f t h a t the b u r l e s q u e i s most s k i l f u l l y handled. The

dramatist v u l g a r i z e s every noble sentiment he can p o s s i b l y lay h i s hands

on w i t h h i l a r i o u s results. S i m i l a r l y h i s c h a r a c t e r s a r e possessed of

all the wrong v i r t u e s . Queen D o l l a l l o l a is f a r removed from any c o n -

c e p t i o n one might have of a t r a g i c heroine. When she weeps, t e a r s gush

down her " b l u b b e r ' d c h e e k s , / L i k e a s w o l ' n g u t t e r " ( l X , 21), when she

speaks, vulgar sentiments issue f o r t h . She emerges as a c r u d e , o v e r - s e x e d ,

m i d d l e - a g e d female who wanders about the c o u r t in a s t a t e o f semi-in-

toxication. Her predominant c h a r a c t e r i s t i c i s her l u s t . She c o n -

tinually swoons over Tom Thumb, and she has o n l y envy f o r G l u m d a l c a ,

the c a p t i v e Queen of G i a n t s , who had to leave twenty husbands b e h i n d .

D o l l a l l o l a ' s s e n t i m e n t s on t h i s l a s t o c c a s i o n are f a r from those e x -

pected o f a Queen — even one who t i p p l e s :

Oh! happy s t a t e of g i a n t i s m — where husbands

L i k e mushrooms grow, w h i l s t h a p l e s s we a r e f o r c e d
To be c o n t e n t , nay, happy t h o u g h t , w i t h one.
( I X , 26, A c t I I , i i i)

When D o l l a l l o l a weighs her v i r t u e a g a i n s t Tom Thumb she f i n d s her

virtue the l i g h t e r o f the two. Knowing i t to be as i m p o s s i b l e f o r her

to 1 i v e w i t h o u t her v i r t u e as w i t h o u t Tom, she can o n l y hope to be

l e f t a widow. F i e l d i n g p l a c e s her regal wishes in a h a r s h e r setting

when he compares her dilemma and proposed s o l u t i o n to t h a t of a whore

s e t l o o s e to walk the s t r e e t s a g a i n a f t e r a sentence in B r i d e w e l l !

When the K i n g f e e l s a sudden p a i n w i t h i n h i s b r e a s t in the presence of

Glumdalca he does not know i f i t a r i s e s from love " o r o n l y the w i n d -

cholick." Huncamunca, the p r i n c e s s loved by both Tom Thumb and G r i z z l

is a s u i t a b l e o f f s p r i n g for such p a r e n t s . A f t e r m a r r y i n g her "Thummy"

she i s eager to p o i n t out to G r i z z l e t h a t " a m a i d , l i k e me, Heaven

f o r m ' d at l e a s t f o r t w o " ( l X , 5 3 ) , and the emphasis we gather i s on the

"at least."

F i e l d i n g achieves his s a t i r i c e f f e c t in a m u l t i t u d e of ways. Fre

q u e n t l y he surrounds a noble sentiment w i t h u t t e r nonsense and by c o n -

trast a c h i e v e s the d e s i r e d e f f e c t of the r i d i c u l o u s . Another d e v i c e

 24

he uses i s to b u i l d to a state of s u b l i m i t y and then add a f i n a l word

o r phrase t h a t i s enough to t o p p l e the whole c o n s t r u c t i o n . Possibly

the most s u c c e s s f u l d e v i c e F i e l d i n g employs i s t h a t of j u x t a p o s i n g the

sublime w i t h the v u l g a r . He begins in e l e v a t e d b e a u t i f u l language,

slowly inflating his image, and then descends w i t h s t a r t l i n g abruptness

t o the common. An example w i l l best illustrate this point;

Thumb; Whisper ye winds t h a t Huncamunca's mine,

Echoes r e p e a t , t h a t Huncamunca's mine!
The d r e a d f u l b u s i n e s s of the war is o ' e r ,
And b e a u t y , heavenly b e a u t y ! crowns my t o i l s !
I've thrown the bloody garment now a s i d e
And hymeneal sweets i n v i t e my b r i d e .
So when some chimney-sweeper a l l the day
Hath through dark paths pursued the sooty way,
At n i g h t , to wash h i s hands and f a c e he f l l e s ,
And in h i s t ' o t h e r s h i r t w i t h h i s B r i c k d u s t a l i e s .
(IX, 29, A c t I, iii)

The e f f e c t of the sudden s h i f t from the l o f t i n e s s o f the f i r s t p a r t of

the passage to the commonness of its latter part is to shock the reader

i n t o an awareness o f the a b s u r d i t y o f the s i t u a t i o n . The imagery i s as

incongruous as the noble s e n t i m e n t s themselves.

After the u n f o r t u n a t e demise of Thumb the tragedy draws to a q u i c k

and bloody c l o s e . In h i s g r i e f over the l o s s of h i s mighty w a r r i o r the

k i n g decrees t h a t they " L e t l a w y e r s , p a r s o n s , and p h y s i c i a n s l o o s e , /

To r o b , impose o n , and to k i l l the w o r l d " ( I X , 70') • This i s the worst

imaginable e n d , it is i m p l i e d , to the w o r s t imaginable d i s a s t e r . There

follows a triumphantly absurd c l i m a x in which everyone i s k i l l e d , pro-

v i d i n g the audience w i t h a b l o o d - b a t h s u p e r i o r to t h a t found in the

g o r i e s t of h e r o i c tragedies.
 25

In the b u r l e s q u e t h e r e would appear to be two b a s i c l e v e l s to the

satire. The most o b v i o u s l e v e l i s the b u r l e s q u e o f h e r o i c tragedy

itself. Fielding ridicules in a d e l i g h t f u l l y humorous manner a l l the

c o n v e n t i o n s t h a t were being abused by the t r a g e d i a n s of h i s e r a . The

object of his s a t i r e is p r i m a r i l y h e r o i c tragedy as i t was being p e r -

formed in London at t h a t t i m e , and the p l a y b u r l e s q u e s d i r e c t l y more

than f o r t y h e r o i c and p s e u d o - c l a s s i c t r a g e d i e s . His s a t i r i c e f f e c t is

a c h i e v e d by g i v i n g mock h e r o i c treatment to the most u n h e r o i c c o u r s e

o f events imaginable. He d i s t o r t s heroic sentiment, juxtaposes high

flowing language w i t h the v u l g a r and o b s c e n e , and i n c o n g r u o u s l y links

images drawn from o p p o s i t e p o l e s , a l l w i t h wonderful dexterity. The

more s e r i o u s i m p l i c a t i o n s beneath h i s b a n t e r i n g tone p r o v i d e a second

level to the s a t i r e . The " t r a g e d y " r e p r e s e n t s a grave comment on

F i e l d i n g ' s s o c i e t y and on the f r a i l t i e s of i t s members. Pride, foolish

idolization, false virtue, all emerge as t a r g e t s in what i s e s s e n t i a l l y

an a t t a c k on the t a s t e s o f the age.

In 1736 F i e l d i n g had formed "The Great M o g u l ' s Company of

Comedians" and had taken the L i t t l e Theater in the Haymarket. In

Pasqu i n, A Dramat i ck Sat i re On the T i m e s , h i s f i r s t p l a y produced there,

he r e t u r n e d to the p o l i t i c a l s a t i r e he had w r i t t e n in Don Q u i x o t e in

England (1733). The e l e c t i o n scenes in the e a r l i e r p l a y had met w i t h

such a p p l a u s e t h a t F i e l d i n g no doubt f e l t a whole new f i e l d for the

B. M. J o n e s , Henry F i e l d i n g , N o v e l i s t and M a g i s t r a t e (London,

1933), p. 51.
 26

exercise of his powers of s a t i r e had opened up — and it had. He p r o - ,

ceeded to make use of the L i t t l e Theater as a platform for the prose-

cution of a vigorous p o l i t i c a l campaign against the ministry.

Both Pasqu in and The Hi s t o r i c a l ReqisterQ 737) contain nea r1y as

much s o c i a l , literary and theatrical s a t i r e as they do p o l i t i c a l satire.

Again the beau monde, the London society with a l l its f o l l i e s and v i c e s ,

is hit by the author. The sheer f r i v o l i t y and inanity of the l i f e of

a London beau, as well as French fashions and the whole art of polite

conversation, are handled with contempt. Such common practices as

keeping and gaming — or rather the commonness of such practices — are

s i m i l a r i l y held up to r i d i c u l e . The fervor for Italian opera and

particularly the town's idolization of F a r i n e l l i , a celebrated Italian

male soprano, receives special attention from F i e l d i n g .

Fielding is at his f u l l strength as a dramatist in Pasqu in. His

range is greater than ever before and with the additional attraction

of p o l i t i c a l s a t i r e the play takes on a sparkle and vivacity that ranks

it high among his dramatic productions. The author again uses the

device of the piay-within-the-play, this time revolving the action

around the rehearsal of two plays; the f i r s t a comedy called "The

E l e c t i o n , " and the second a tragedy called "The L i f e and Death of Common

Sense." As their t i t l e s would indicate they are e s s e n t i a l l y p o l i t i c a l

and l i t e r a r y satires at their core, with a generous helping of social

satire spread over the whole as a kind of f r o s t i n g .

"The Election" consists of a series of humorous scenes in which

 27

the f l a g r a n t and open b r i b e r y at e l e c t i o n s and the shameless immorality

of f a s h i o n a b l e l i f e are s a t i r i z e d . Bribery is the major theme of the

comedy. The scenes e x p o s i n g the c o r r u p t i o n t h a t r i d d l e d e l e c t i o n s were

so c o m p l e t e l y s u c c e s s f u l the O p p o s i t i o n suggested t h a t the p l a y should

be a c t e d in every borough b e f o r e the e l e c t i o n s to warn the people a g a i n s t

the b r i b e r y t h a t took p l a c e . 7
These scenes are comical and lively.

The s a t i r e is never very s u b t l e , but the comedy would not succeed if

i t were. However, even in these scenes in which F i e l d i n g was ridi-

c u l i n g the m i n i s t r y , he does not pass up an o p p o r t u n i t y to j i b e at

Col l e y C i b b e r . In the scene w i t h Lord P l a c e , Colonel Promise and

s e v e r a l v o t e r s , Lord P l a c e promises to p r o v i d e f o r them a l l , either

in customs, e x c i s e o r the court;

2 voter. My L o r d , I should l i k e a p l a c e at c o u r t too, I don't

much c a r e what i t i s , p r o v i d e d I wear f i n e clothes
and have something to do in the k i t c h e n o r the c e l l a r ,
I own I s h o u l d l i k e t h e - . c e l l a r , f o r I am a devilish
l o v e r of s a c k . ^

Place. Sack, say y o u 7

Odso, you s h a l l be p o e t - l a u r e a t e .

2 voter. Poet! no, my L o r d , I am no p o e t , I c a n ' t make v e r s e s .

Place. No m a t t e r for that, you'll be a b l e to make o d e s .

2 voter. Odes, my l o r d ! what are those 7

Place. F a i t h , s i r , I c a n ' t t e l l what they a r e , but I

know you may be q u a l i f i e d f o r the p l a c e w i t h o u t being

3 P
° e t
' (XI, 184, Act II, ,)

B r i b e r y and c o r r u p t i o n a r e the o r d e r of the day. F i e l d i n g was having

Ibid., p. 51.
fun w i t h h i s s u b j e c t m a t t e r , but the l a u g h t e r does not e r a s e the

sobering i m p l i c a t i o n s o f many o f the s c e n e s .

The i m m o r a l i t y of f a s h i o n a b l e s o c i e t y and the t a s t e s o f the

t h e a t e r - g o i n g w o r l d a r e prime t a r g e t s for the s a t i r i s t . Mrs. Mayoress's

d e s i r e to have her husband a g a i n in o f f i c e i s based s o l e l y on her w i s h

g

t o get out o f the c o u n t r y and back to the p l e a s u r e s of London. She

is seconded in t h i s by her daughter who m a n i f e s t s a l l the p o p u l a r tastes

o f the day. Miss Mayoress e x p r e s s e s her reasons f o r w a n t i n g to return

to the c i t y ; " t h e n we s h a l l see F a r i b e l l y , the s t r a n g e man-woman t h a t

they say i s w i t h c h i l d , and the f i n e p i c t u r e s o f M e r l i n ' s cave a t the

p l a y - h o u s e s , and the r o p e - d a n c i n g and the tumbl i n g " ( X I , 179, A c t I I , i) .

There i s a g r e a t deal o f rancor d i s p l a y e d in F i e l d i n g ' s a t t a c k on

F a r i n e l l i and what he r e p r e s e n t e d . N e a r l y ten y e a r s l a t e r in the True

P a t r i o t we f i n d Mr. Adams r e m a r k i n g ;

T h i s o p e r a , I am i n f o r m e d , i s a d i v e r s i o n in which a p r o d i g i o u s
sum o f money, more than i s to be c o l l e c t e d out o f twenty p a r i s h e s ,
is l a v i s h e d away on f o r e i g n eunuchs and p a p i s t s , v e r y s c a n -
d a l o u s to be s u f f e r e d at any t i m e , e s p e c i a l l y a t a season
when both war and famine hang o v e r our h e a d s . 9

There would seem to be two f o r c e s o p e r a t i n g behind F i e l d i n g ' s d i s l i k e .

In h i s n o v e l s F i e l d i n g c o n t i n u e s to a s s o c i a t e good w i t h c o u n t r y
l i f e and e v i l w i t h the c i t i e s , e s p e c i a l l y London. His h e r o e s , Joseph
and Fanny and Tom and S o p h i a , f o r example, a r e rewarded by a l i f e o f
ease and contentment in the c o u n t r y .

9
No. 13, Tuesday, J a n . 2 8 , 1746.
 29

f i r s t a r e the reasons e v i d e n t in Mr. Adam's comments, which a r e linked

w i t h the whole q u e s t i o n o f a r t and c u l t u r e , but s e c o n d l y , t h e r e is a

natural, healthy masculine d i s t a s t e for t h i s type of fawning,efferninate

p e r s o n , a d i s t a s t e t h a t makes i t s e l f obvious in a l l his writings.

The a u t h o r r i d i c u l e s the s o c i a l f o l l i e s of h i s s o c i e t y in good-

natured f a s h i o n . Lord P l a c e comments on Miss M a y o r e s s ' s remarkable

breeding — r e f l e c t e d in her good t a s t e — and t e l l s her she w i l l no

doubt be much admired in the beau monde and soon taken i n t o keeping by

some man of q u a l i t y . F o r , he s a y s ,

every one now k e e p s , and i s k e p t , t h e r e a r e no such t h i n g as

m a r r i a g e s n o w - a - d a y s , u n l e s s merely S m i t h f i e l d c o n t r a c t s , and
t h a t f o r the support of f a m i l i e s , but then the husband and
w i f e both take i n t o keeping w i t h i n a f o r t n i g h t .
( X I , 180, A c t I I , i)

We d i s c o v e r t h a t t h e r e a r e s e v e r a l " r e p u t a b l e " t r a d e s which people of

f a s h i o n may p r a c t i s e , " s u c h as gaming, i n t r i g u i n g , v o t i n g and running

in d e b t , " and a l l w i t h o u t f e a r of punishment. Mrs. Mayoress c a r e f u l l y

e x p l a i n s to her q u e s t i o n i n g daughter t h a t " p e o p l e a r e punished for

d o i n g naughty t h i n g s , but people of q u a l i t y a r e never p u n i s h e d , there-

f o r e they never do any naughty t h i n g s " (Act II, i).

The second p a r t of the p l a y , F u s t i a n ' s t r a g e d y , "The L i f e and

Death of Common S e n s e , " has as i t s main theme a c o n s p i r a c y a g a i n s t

Common Sense. The v i l l a i n s in t h i s i n s u r r e c t i o n a r e the representatives

of r e l i g i o n and the l e a r n e d p r o f e s s i o n s of law and m e d i c i n e . These

c o n s p i r a t o r s p r e f e r Queen Ignorance to Queen Common Sense as their

sovereign. F i e l d i n g uses t h i s a l l e g o r y to s a t i r i z e the inordinate

 30

c l a i m s s e t up by the c h u r c h , to expose the i n e q u a l i t i e s and h a r d s h i p s

t h a t the e x i s t i n g laws countenanced,and to r i d i c u l e the quackery

practised in the name o f medical s c i e n c e . T h i s tragedy is more starkly

allegorical than the puppet-show in The A u t h o r ' s Farce, it is less

p a r t i c u l a r i z e d and more b i t t e r . The i n v a s i o n of the realm of Common

Sense by Ignorance i s a g a i n b a s i c a l l y the same theme as is found in

the D u n c i a d . It a l s o r e v e a l s in e x p l i c i t terms the problem w i t h which

F i e l d i n g as a p r o f e s s i o n a l man o f the t h e a t e r was always confronted;

the c o n f l i c t i n g demands of sound c r i t i c a l sense and p o p u l a r taste.

F i e l d i n g chose to s a t i r i z e the t a s t e s of h i s s o c i e t y r a t h e r than c o n -

form to them. W r i t i n g a t a time "when nonsense, d u l n e s s , lewdness,

and a l l manner of p r o f a n e n e s s and i m m o r a l i t y " were " d a i l y practised

on the s t a g e " ( X I , 2 0 1 , A c t III, i), the author attempted to h o l d up

to r i d i c u l e the f a s h i o n a b l e e n t e r t a i n m e n t s o f h i s day by satirizing

them.

In the t r a g e d y Common Sense is ousted by Ignorance. She interprets

her f a l l in terms t h a t a n t i c i p a t e the f o u r t h book of P o p e ' s Dune i a d ;

Henceforth a l l things s h a l l topsy-turvy t u r n ,

P h y s i c k s h a l l k i l l , and Law e n s l a v e the w o r l d ;
C i t s s h a l l t u r n beaus, and t a s t e I t a l i a n songs
W h i l e c o u r t i e r s a r e s t o c k - j o b b i n g in the c i t y .
P l a c e s , r e q u i r i n g l e a r n i n g and g r e a t p a r t s ,
H e n c e f o r t h s h a l l a l l be h u s t l e d in a h a t ,
And drawn by men d e f i c i e n t in them b o t h .
( X I , 224, A c t V, i)

The tone is l i g h t e r , the language rougher, but the implications are

the same as those of the Dune i a d , though a d m i t t e d l y , Pope c r e a t e s more

of a f e e l i n g o f h o r r o r a t the p r o s p e c t o f the r e i g n of Dulness than

does F i e l d i n g .

Much of the s a t i r e of Pasqu i n i s d i r e c t e d a t the t h e a t e r . The

ridiculous plots, the s i l l y m i s t a k e s t h a t o c c u r in the r e h e a r s a l s —

such as Queen Common Sense a p p e a r i n g as her ghost b e f o r e killing

h e r s e l f - - the c o n s t a n t h a g g l i n g of T r a p w i t , F u s t i a n and S n e e r w e l 1 ,

t h e s e are a l l p a r t of the a u t h o r ' s humorous a t t a c k on the p r a c t i c e s

of the s t a g e . The mock h e r o i c s of the tragedy accompanied by the

comments of F u s t i a n , the a u t h o r , b u r l e s q u e the a b s u r d i t i e s o f heroic

plays in the same manner and f o r the same reasons as Tom Thumb. The

a t t a c k on pantomine, Italian opera, doctors, l a w y e r s , Grub S t r e e t ,

and even the Royal S o c i e t y , r e v e a l the a u t h o r ' s never-failing interest

in the s o c i e t y around him. His p o l i t i c a l s a t i r e , which blossomed

really f o r the f i r s t time in t h i s p l a y , was more than j u s t a means

f o r drawing a f u l l house. F i e l d i n g showed a d i s t a s t e f o r f a l s e pride

and a f f e c t a t i o n in a l l their forms and he c o n s i d e r e d i t even more

damnable when such h y p o c r i s y m a n i f e s t e d itself in s o - c a l l e d " g r e a t men.

Pasqu i n was the b e g i n n i n g of the end f o r F i e l d i n g as a dramatist.

The Walpole a d m i n i s t r a t i o n regarded him as the c h i e f s a t i r i s t for the

O p p o s i t i o n and was u n d e r s t a n d a b l y d i s t u r b e d by h i s a t t a c k s . Previous

attempts to l i c e n s e the a c t i n g of p l a y s had f a i l e d , however, leaving

the p l a y w r i g h t s w i t h a f a l s e sense of s e c u r i t y , ' ^ F i e l d i n g was a t the

In 1733 more than one u n s u c c e s s f u l attempt had been made to t e s t

the l e g a l i t y o f p e r f o r m i n g p l a y s w i t h o u t a l i c e n s e . In the same y e a r
a b i l l to r e g u l a t e p l a y h o u s e s was i n t r o d u c e d in the House of Commons
and d e f e a t e d . In 1 7 3 5 . S i r John Barnard i n t r o d u c e d a s i m i l a r b i l l
w h i c h , w h i l e supported by W a l p o l e , was i g n o r e d .
 32

time the l e a d i n g f i g u r e o f the London s t a g e , a man a t the peak o f his

dramatic career. His d e d i c a t i o n to the publ i c in The H i s t o r i c a l Register

For the Year 1736 c o n t a i n e d p r o p o s a l s f o r e n l a r g i n g the L i t t l e Theater,

redecorating i t and b r i n g i n g in a new, b e t t e r company o f a c t o r s . The

same d e d i c a t i o n c o n t a i n e d a l s o an i r o n i c foreshadowing of the f a t e that

was soon to b e f a l l him;

If n a t u r e hath g i v e n me any t a l e n t s a t r i d i c u l i n g v i c e and

i m p o s t u r e , I s h a l l not be i n d o l e n t , nor a f r a i d of e x e r t i n g
them, w h i l e the l i b e r t y of the p r e s s and stage s u b s i s t s ,
t h a t i s t o s a y , w h i l e we have any l i b e r t y l e f t among u s .
( X I , 237)

This l i b e r t y was taken away. On May 20, 1737, Walpole introduced

a bill to regu1 a t e pi a y h o u s e s , u s i n g a pi ay c a l 1 ed The Golden Rump

(author unknown), which had come i n t o h i s hands through one G i f f a r d ,

proprietor of the L i n c o l n ' s Inn F i e l d s T h e a t r e , as an example of the

potential threat o f u n l i c e n s e d p l a y s to the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n . The bill

went through a l l its stages in l e s s than t h r e e weeks and became law

on June 21st. As a r e s u l t a l l t h e a t e r s except those a t Covent Garden

and Drury Lane were c l o s e d and F i e l d i n g ' s d r a m a t i c c a r e e r was o v e r .

 The Mi s e e l 1 an i es

Fielding's f i r s t significant venture in prose was The Champ i o n .

T h i s newspaper p r o v i d e d him w i t h more freedom f o r h i s s a t i r i c attacks

than had the s t r i c t e r c o n f i n e s of the drama. F i e l d i n g adopted the

persona of C a p t a i n H e r c u l e s V i n e g a r — in f a c t he c r e a t e d a whole family

of V i n e g a r s j u s t as S t e e l e had c r e a t e d the B i c k e r s t a f f s in The T a t l e r

— and in t h i s way he was a b l e to c o n t i n u e h i s a t t a c k on W a l p o l e , the

Cibbers, Italian O p e r a , c u r r e n t t a s t e s and t r e n d s of f a s h i o n a b l e s o c i e t y ,

and a l l the quacks and mountebanks he had r i d i c u l e d in h i s p l a y s . The

Champ ion p r o v i d e d the a u t h o r w i t h a p e r f e c t means f o r d e a l i n g w i t h

s o c i e t y ' s f o l l i e s and w i t h both the v i r t u e s and v i c e s i n h e r e n t in human

nature. It s t a r t e d F i e l d i n g w r i t i n g on themes t h a t were to form a b a s i c

p a r t of h i s f i c t i o n f o r the r e s t of h i s c a r e e r . Issues o n l y touched in

h i s f a r c e s and b u r l e s q u e s became t o p i c s f o r the e s s a y i s t . Charity,

poverty, goodness as opposed to g r e a t n e s s , became subj*ects f o r moral

essays t h a t began to appear w i t h h i s p o l i t i c a l a l l e g o r i e s and h i s c o n -

 34

t i n u e d s p o r t w i t h the C i b b e r s o f h i s s o c i e t y . J u s t as h i s dramatic

c a r e e r had p r o v i d e d him w i t h i n v a l u a b l e t r a i n i n g f o r the w r i t i n g of

the n o v e l , so too these f i r s t v e n t u r e s in prose p r o v i d e d the germs o f

what were to develop i n t o b a s i c themes of h i s fiction.

The Mi seel 1 an i e s , p u b l i s h e d in t h r e e volumes in 1743, can be r e -

garded as a major landmark in F i e l d i n g ' s c a r e e r . A l t h o u g h they came

out one year a f t e r the p u b l i c a t i o n of Joseph Andrews, a significant

p o r t i o n of t h e i r contents is assumed to have been composed a t an e a r l i e r

date. They can be seen as the product o f h i s t r a n s i t i o n a l p e r i o d be-

tween the c a r e e r s of d r a m a t i s t and n o v e l i s t .

In the M i s e e l 1 a n i e s t h e r e is ample e v i d e n c e o f F i e l d i n g the

satirist. It i s in t h i s wonderful assortment o f poems, essays and

longer n a r r a t i v e s t h a t we see a s i d e o f F i e l d i n g not always recognizable

in h i s comic w o r k s . This F i e l d i n g is cast in the mold o f L u c i a n and

S w i f t and he o f t e n w r i t e s s a t i r e purely for s a t i r e ' s sake. He demands

our a d m i r a t i o n for the s k i l l w i t h which he handles the d e v i c e s of the

satirist's trade. F r e q u e n t l y he adopts a persona who i s as gl ib and

c o n v i n c i n g as S w i f t ' s modest p r o j e c t o r , ^ s u s t a i n i n g h i s p o i s e in vir-

t u a l l y any l i t e r a r y situation in which he c a r e s to p l a c e h i m s e l f . In

poetry F i e l d i n g experimented w i t h epigrams and mock e p i t a p h s , w i t h

parody and b u r l e s q u e , w i t h the s a t i r i c e p i s t l e and the s a t i r i c allegory,

" A Modest P r o p o s a l , " The Prose Works of Jonathan S w i f t , e d . Temple

S c o t t (London, 1905), v o l . V I I . ' In t h i s p r o p o s a l the p r o j e c t o r l a y s out
a p l a n f o r s o l v i n g I r e l a n d ' s problems t h a t i s r a t i o n a l , c o n v i n c i n g , and
u n b e l i e v a b l y h o r r i b l e . - C i t a t i o n s from S w i f t in my t e x t a r e to the
Temple S c o t t e d i t i o n .
 35

and he even attempted to w r i t e v e r s e e s s a y s , m i x i n g s a t i r e and direct

2
statement in the manner o f Pope. In h i s prose he used e p i s t l e s ,

burlesque c r i t i c i s m , diatribes, dream v i s i o n s , mock encomia, e s s a y s ,

mock s c h o l a r s h i p , b u r l e s q u e h i s t o r y , and d i a l o g u e to a c h i e v e h i s

satiric effect.

To i l l u s t r a t e the s k i l l w i t h which F i e l d i n g i s c a p a b l e of handling

satire I propose f i r s t to d i s c u s s two s h o r t e r p i e c e s from h i s Mi s e e l -

1 anies; "An Essay on N o t h i n g " and "Some PAPERS Proper to be Read

B e f o r e the R 1 Society." Here the author ridicules his satiric

targets in e s s a y s t h a t a r e d e c i d e d l y Swiftian.

F i e l d i n g ' s " E s s a y on N o t h i n g " is a d e l i g h t f u l l y executed p i e c e

of s a t i r i c w r i t i n g . Cast in the form of an encomium, the essay e u l o -

gizes " n o t h i n g . " The s u b j e c t had been t r e a t e d b e f o r e , perhaps most

notably by John W i l m o t , E a r l of R o c h e s t e r , in a poem e n t i t l e d Upon

Noth i n g , but F i e l d i n g g i v e s i t a new t w i s t . A d o p t i n g the persona of a

pretentious l o g i c i a n , F i e l d i n g s e t s out to prove in a l o g i c a l , well-

o r d e r e d argument t h a t " n o t h i n g " not o n l y e x i s t s , but t h a t it can be

s e e n , t a s t e d , s m e l l e d , f e l t , and l o v e d , h a t e d , o r f e a r e d . This par-

ticular form of s a t i r e was not new w i t h F i e l d i n g , i t was in f a c t one

w i t h an a n c i e n t t r a d i t i o n behind it. The encomium was o r i g i n a l l y an

oration in the e p i d e i c t i c mode which e u l o g i z e d a p e r s o n , p l a c e o r thing

a c c o r d i n g to a f a i r l y c o n s i s t e n t form w h i l e employing a c o n v e n t i o n a l

H. K. M i l l e r , Essays on F i e l d i n g ' s M i s c e l l a n i e s ( P r i n c e t o n , 1961),

p. 273.
s e t o f r e l e v a n t arguments. It was meant to be i m p r e s s i v e and o s t e n -

tatious in i t s formal treatment of the s u b j e c t . The beauty of F i e l d i n g '

essay r e s t s in the manner in which i t adheres to a l l the demands o f

form w h i l e a t the same time r i d i i c u l ing the a r r o g a n t nonsense t h a t many

contemporary a u t h o r s were p a s s i n g o f f as l e a r n e d t r e a t i s e s .

The a u t h o r ' s parody of the s e r i o u s encomium f u n c t i o n s on t h r e e

distinct levels. On the s u r f a c e t h e r e is the p a n e g y r i c i t s e l f on

the s u b j e c t of " n o t h i n g . " T h i s is n e a t l y p r e s e n t e d in a forma 1 , e r u d i t e

tone. The next l e v e l i s the s a t i r e p r o p e r , the i m p l i e d meaning t h a t is

in e v e r y statement about " n o t h i n g " and which i s d i r e c t l y a p p l i c a b l e to

contemporary v a l u e s . T h i s second l e v e l f u s e s w i t h the f i r s t in the

m a t t e r o f f o r m , f o r the framework (the rhetorical devices proper to

the s e r i o u s encomium) c o n t r i b u t e s to the s a t i r i c e f f e c t by v i r t u e of

the f a i t h f u l n e s s w i t h which the s a t i r i s t f o l l o w s the r u l e s . It is in

r e c o g n i t i o n of the form and the subsequent awareness of what is being

done w i t h i t t h a t much of the p l e a s u r e to be d e r i v e d from the satire

is f o u n d . The t h i r d l e v e l can be seen when the a u t h o r drops h i s ironic

pose and speaks d i r e c t l y to the a u d i e n c e . T h i s i s something t h a t Swift

seldom, i f e v e r , does, for in S w i f t the n a r r a t o r wears the mask o f the

adversary p r a c t i c a l l y throughout. But i f one can agree w i t h the s u g -

g e s t i o n t h a t one of the g r e a t c o n t r i b u t i o n s F i e l d i n g made to the novel

I b i d . , p. 302.

T h i s d i s c u s s i o n i s based on d i v i s i o n s suggested by M i l l e r .
 37

was the c o u p l i n g of the t e c h n i q u e o f the persona w i t h t h a t o f the

straight-forward n a r r a t o r and e x p o s i t o r , t e a c h i n g w r i t e r s o f E n g l i s h
5
fiction to assume and remove the mask a t w i l l , then I think it is

r e a s o n a b l e to a p p l y the same argument to these s h o r t e r w o r k s . I see

no reason f o r f e e l i n g t h a t the a u t h o r ' s i n t r u s i o n d e t r a c t s from the

satiric effect, rather, I would s u g g e s t , i t s t r e n g t h e n s the p o i n t the

satirist i s making. I will try to i l l u s t r a t e t h i s by a c l o s e r exam-

i n a t i o n o f the essay itself.

In h i s introduction to the paper the author s t a t e s h i s surprise

t h a t so few w r i t e r s have endeavoured to e l a b o r a t e on t h i s particular

subject of " n o t h i n g . " He w r i t e s ;

But whatever the r e a s o n , c e r t a i n i t i s , t h a t except a hardy

w i t in the r e i g n of C h a r l e s II none e v e r hath dared to w r i t e
on t h i s s u b j e c t ; I mean o p e n l y and avowedly, f o r i t must be
c o n f e s s e d , t h a t most o f our modern a u t h o r s , however f o r e i g n
the m a t t e r which they endeavour to t r e a t may seem a t t h e i r
f i r s t s e t t i n g o u t , they g e n e r a l l y b r i n g the work to t h i s in
the e n d .
(XIV, 309)

In t h i s passage can be found the t h r e e l e v e l s r e f e r r e d to above. There

i s the p o l i t e , formal introduction demanded o f the form. The type of

person w r i t i n g the t r e a t i s e is a l s o revealed. He is a man p u f f e d w i t h

h i s own importance and almost condescending w i t h h i s "none hath e v e r

dared to w r i t e on t h i s subject." I t h i n k we have to see the persona

E l e a n o r N. Hutchens, Irony in Tom Jones ( U n i v e r s i t y of Alabama

P r e s s , 1965), p. 1^9.
 38

as b e i n g in many r e s p e c t s s i m i l a r to the hack w r i t e r of A T a l e of a

Tub. The l a t t e r i s a p r o d u c t o f Grub S t r e e t , a man w i l l i n g to t u r n

h i s pen t o a b s o l u t e l y a n y t h i n g — even n o t h i n g . To the s a t i r i s t this

man r e p r e s e n t s a d e f i n i t e threat to a s o c i e t y t h a t is s t r i v i n g to

m a i n t a i n c e r t a i n s t a n d a r d s in i t s literature. In F i e l d i n g , as in

S w i f t and Pope, we f i n d moral d e c l i n e equated w i t h c u l t u r a l decline

w i t h the hack w r i t e r s r i d i n g the c r e s t of the wave of degeneracy.

S w i f t ' s hack w r i t e r i s a n o t a b l e example o f someone who has

w r i t t e n on " n o t h i n g , " f o r he ends up w r i t i n g on t h i s s u b j e c t a t the

c o n c l u s i o n o f the T a l e . He is a l s o q u i t e e x p l i c i t about h i s reasons

f o r doing so;

I am now t r y i n g an experiment very f r e q u e n t among modern

a u t h o r s , which i s to w r i t e upon n o t h i n g , when the s u b j e c t is
u t t e r l y e x h a u s t e d , to l e t the pen s t i l l move o n , by some c a l l e d
the ghost o f w i t , d e l i g h t i n g t o walk a f t e r the death of i t s
body.
( S w i f t , I, 142)

The n a r r a t o r o f The T a l e of a Tub i s a u n i f y i n g f a c t o r in t h a t he

r e p r e s e n t s a t a r g e t o f much of the s a t i r e . The whole insane Tubbian

world manifests itself in t h i s p r o d u c t o f Grub S t r e e t . It i s a mad

w o r l d o f d i s t o r t e d v a l u e s , f i l l e d w i t h mountebanks and f o o l s a l l acting

their p a r t s on t h e i r itinerant stages.

F i e l d i n g ' s persona r e p r e s e n t s an e q u a l l y v i l l a i n o u s t h r e a t to

society. L i k e the a u t h o r of the Ta1e he too is the o b j e c t o f the

a t t a c k and a u n i f y i n g f e a t u r e o f the s a t i r e . He i s the o s t e n t a t i o u s ,

a r r o g a n t pedant p r e t e n d i n g to g r e a t wisdom and knowledge. At times

the a u t h o r drops h i s i r o n i c pose and speaks d i r e c t l y to the a u d i e n c e .

At such p o i n t s it i s not the hack s p e a k i n g any l o n g e r , but Fielding

h i m s e l f d i r e c t i n g a s a t i r i c barb a t h i s c o n t e m p o r a r i e s . These l a p s e s

into direct comment never s t r i k e the reader as being out o f p l a c e in

the s a t i r e . It is d i f f i c u l t to d i s c e r n the s h i f t in tone on many

o c c a s i o n s and i t is t h i s very a m b i g u i t y t h a t g i v e s z e s t to the whole

game o f t r y i n g to d e c i d e when F i e l d i n g i s in e a r n e s t o r when he is

m o c k i n g , when i t i s the persona s p e a k i n g and when the a u t h o r himself.

He has such a d e l i g h t f u l sense o f the l u d i c r o u s t h a t the reader is

hesitant to a c c e p t a t f a c e v a l u e a n y t h i n g he w r i t e s in the s a t i r i c vein

Fielding frequently switches targets from h i s persona t o others

among h i s c o n t e m p o r a r i e s — so whenever it s u i t s h i s purpose he drops

the mask and p i c k s up a n o t h e r s a t i r i c d e v i c e , t h a t of ironic commentary

This is a f e a t u r e of F i e l d i n g ' s s a t i r e t h a t is not emphasized enough.

He wrote w i t h a thorough grounding in the works of the g r e a t writers.

He knew the r u l e s , the forms and the c o n v e n t i o n s and u t i l i z e d them

f o r h i s own p u r p o s e s .

The a u t h o r of the Essay proceeds to lay out h i s t r e a t i s e in a

manner b e f i t t i n g a s e r i o u s encomium. In h i s f i r s t s e c t i o n , as p r o p e r

in such a l o g i c a l p r e s e n t a t i o n , he d i s c u s s e s the " A n t i q u i t y of Nothing"

T h i s i s very p l a i n l y to be d i s c o v e r e d in the f i r s t pages, and

sometimes b o o k s , of a l l general h i s t o r i a n s , and i n d e e d , the
study o f t h i s important s u b j e c t f i l l s up the whole l i f e of an
a n t i q u a r y , i t being always at the bottom of h i s i n q u i r y , and
i s commonly a t l a s t d i s c o v e r e d by him w i t h i n f i n i t e l a b o u r
and p a i n s .
(xiv, 310-311)

W i t h i n the framework of h i s mock eulogy F i e l d i n g comments neatly,

 40

politely, and d e s t r u c t i v e l y on a number of intellectual abuses. Fielding

shared w i t h many w r i t e r s of the age a d i s t a s t e f o r the misuse o f learning,

particularly when i t m a n i f e s t e d itself in p r e t e n s i o n . Many of h i s c o n -

t e m p o r a r i e s , a n t i q u a r i e s and h i s t o r i a n s among them, must have struck

him as b e i n g employed a t t u r n i n g out sheer nonsense, w a s t i n g v a l u a b l e

effort in the p u r s u i t o f v a i n recognition.

The second s e c t i o n , " O f the Nature of N o t h i n g , " f u r t h e r illus-

trates the l e a r n e d , o r d e r l y a s p e c t s of the t r e a t i s e . The n a r r a t o r

outlines in c o n v i n c i n g tones h i s p l a n o f attack;

I s h a l 1 . . . p r o c e e d to show, f i r s t , what n o t h i n g i s , s e c o n d l y ,
I s h a l l d i s c l o s e the v a r i o u s k i n d s o f n o t h i n g , a n d , l a s t l y
s h a l l prove i t s g r e a t d i g n i t y , and t h a t i t is the end o f
everything.
(XIV, 311)

There c o u l d be no c l e a r e r statement of purpose f o r an admittedly

tenuous s u b j e c t . The n a r r a t o r is c o n f i d e n t . He p r o v i d e s the reader

w i t h e l a b o r a t e comparisons t h a t emphasize the p o i n t s he i s making;

For i n s t a n c e , when a b l a d d e r i s f u l l of w i n d , i t i s f u l l of
s o m e t h i n g , but when t h a t i s l e t o u t , we a p t l y s a y , t h e r e i s
n o t h i n g in i t . The same may be as j u s t l y a s s e r t e d of a man as
of a bladder. However w e l l he may be bedaubed w i t h l a c e , o r
w i t h t i t l e , y e t i f he have not something in him, we may p r e d i c t
the same o f him as of an empty b l a d d e r .
( X I V , 312)

Here a g a i n F i e l d i n g g l i d e s smoothly from one s a t i r i c t a r g e t to another.

There is f i r s t the s a t i r e aimed a t the p e r s o n a . This is inherent in

the form and the language which i s m e c h a n i c a l , p r e t e n t i o u s rhetoric.

E x p r e s s i o n s l i k e "we a p t l y s a y " g i v e the paper the formal a i r of a

 41

l e a r n e d document w h i l e a t the same time t h i n g s a r e e x p l a i n e d in the

s i m p l e s t , commonest t e r m s . F i e l d i n g mixes l o f t y purpose w i t h com-

pletely incongruous imagery in o r d e r to emphasize the r i d i c u l o u s . We

have a d i r e c t comment from F i e l d i n g h i m s e l f as w e l l i f a man has

nothing in him, r e g a r d l e s s of h i s f i n e r y and h i s t i t l e s , he i s the same

as an empty bladder.

The t h i r d and f i n a l s e c t i o n , "Of the D i g n i t y o f N o t h i n g , and an

Endeavour to Prove t h a t it is the End as w e l l as the B e g i n n i n g o f all

T h i n g s , " r e p r e s e n t s the brunt of F i e l d i n g ' s s a t i r i c a t t a c k . It is

here we f i n d e x p r e s s e d most c l e a r l y h i s d i s t a s t e f o r a s u b s e r v i e n c e to

mere empty t i t l e s . He d e s p i s e d the idea o f p a y i n g r e s p e c t to a man not

f o r what he i s but f o r who he i s — f o r q u a l i t i e s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h h i s

title, not f o r any t h a t he may in f a c t p o s s e s s . F i e l d i n g uses the

following s y l l o g i s m to prove the e x i s t e n c e of the d i g n i t y of nothing;

The r e s p e c t p a i d to men on account of t h e i r t i t l e s is p a i d

a t l e a s t to the supposal of t h e i r s u p e r i o r v i r t u e s and
a b i l i t i e s , o r i t i s p a i d to n o t h i n g .
But when a man is a n o t o r i o u s knave o r f o o l , i t i s i m p o s s i b l e
t h e r e should be any such s u p p o s a l .
The c o n c l u s i o n is a p p a r e n t .
(XIV, 316)

This i s the same type of chop l o g i c t h a t S w i f t ' s modest p r o j e c t o r uses.

Here, as the w r i t e r proceeds to prove the d i g n i t y of " n o t h i n g , " not

o n l y the persona but e v e r y h y p o c r i t e , a l l those who p r e t e n d to something

they a r e n o t , come under d e v a s t a t i n g a t t a c k . The persona c o n t i n u e s ;

Now t h a t no man i s ashamed of e i t h e r paying o r r e c e i v i n g t h i s

r e s p e c t I wonder n o t , s i n c e the g r e a t importance of n o t h i n g
seems, I t h i n k , to be p r e t t y a p p a r e n t ; but t h a t they should
 kl

deny the D e i t y w o r s h i p p e d , and endeavour to r e p r e s e n t nothing

as s o m e t h i n g , i s more worthy r e p r e h e n s i o n .
(XIV, 316)

The mask of the persona i s dangl ing around the a u t h o r ' s neck a t this

point. T h i s i s F i e l d i n g g i v i n g vent to h i s f e e l i n g s c o n c e r n i n g the

c o r r u p t i o n , d e c e i t , " v u l g a r w o r s h i p and a d u l a t i o n " t h a t goes on in

the c o u r t s and c i t i e s . He almost abandons h i s t r e a t i s e in these

passages. He r e v e a l s h i s concern w i t h the " g r e a t man" of society;

The most a s t o n i s h i n g i n s t a n c e of t h i s r e s p e c t , so f r e q u e n t l y
p a i d t o n o t h i n g , i s when i t i s p a i d ( i f I may so e x p r e s s my-
s e l f ) to something l e s s than n o t h i n g , when the person who
r e c e i v e s i t i s not o n l y v o i d of the q u a l i t y f o r which he i s
r e s p e c t e d , but is in r e a l i t y n o t o r i o u s l y g u i l t y of the v i c e s
d i r e c t l y o p p o s i t e to the v i r t u e s whose a p p l a u s e he r e c e i v e s .
T h i s i s , i n d e e d , the h i g h e s t degree of n o t h i n g , o r ( i f I may
be a l l o w e d the w o r d ) , the n o t h i n g e s t of a l l n o t h i n g s .
(XIV, 316)

F i e l d i n g is p r o t e s t i n g a s o c i e t y in which " g r a v i t y , canting, blustering,

o s t e n t a t i o n , pomp, and such l i k e , " a r e c o n t i n u a l l y m i s t a k e n f o r true

v i r t u e s such as "wisdom, p i e t y , magnanimity, c h a r i t y , and t r u e great-

ness." It is a world in which the f o r m e r , the p r e t e n d e r s , a r e g i v e n

all the honour and r e v e r e n c e due the latter.

The e n d i n g of t h i s mock encomium p r o v i d e s the h a r s h e s t note o f

all. In such a s o c i e t y t h e r e is no reward, even f o r the virtuous.

Good w i l l c o n t i n u e to l o s e o u t , e v i l to p r o s p e r .

The v i r t u o u s , w i s e , and l e a r n e d , may then be unconcerned a t

a l l the charges o f m i n i s t e r i e s and of government, s i n c e they
may be w e l l s a t i s f i e d , t h a t w h i l e m i n i s t e r s of s t a t e a r e rogues
t h e m s e l v e s , and have i n f e r i o r k n a v i s h t o o l s to b r i b e and r e -
ward, t r u e v i r t u e , wisdom, l e a r n i n g , w i t , and i n t e g r i t y ,
w i l l most c e r t a i n l y b r i n g t h e i r p o s s e s s o r s - - n o t h i n g .
(XIV, 319)
 43

The f i n a l ironic twist effectively negates what immediately precedes • i_t

F i e l d i n g b u i l d s towards a c l i m a x , i n t r o d u c e s a ray of hope in the murky

w o r l d he has p o r t r a y e d , then o b l i t e r a t e s w i t h t h a t unexpected " n o t h i n g "

which i s the reward of good as w e l l as e v i l in t h i s s o c i e t y of false

values. It i s a s o c i e t y in which goodness is seldom rewarded but the

g r e a t n e s s of a Jonathan W i l d (or a Walpole) is revered. It is an age

in which the c o r r u p t p r o s p e r , d e c e i t and fawning a r e the o r d e r of the

d a y , and in which a l e a r n e d t r e a t i s e can be p r e s e n t e d on " n o t h i n g . "

The s t r a i g h t - f a c e d s i n c e r i t y and u n c r i t i c a l n a i v e t e of Fielding's

parody o f the P h i l o s o p h i c a l T r a n s a c t i o n s is r e m i n i s c e n t o f Swift's

"Modest P r o p o s a l . " The paper is r e a s o n e d , a c a d e m i c , and e x t r e m e l y

logical, the persona of the v i r t u o s o is maintained throughout.

To t u r n to S w i f t f o r a moment, we see h i s economic p r o j e c t o r as

a man who views e v e r y t h i n g in terms of money, one whose v a l u e s a l l

come equipped w i t h p r i c e t a g s . Yet the b a s i c element of the s a t i r e is

the c o m p e l l i n g c o n c l u s i o n — how can you d i s a g r e e w i t h a person whose

s o l e d e s i r e i s to b e n e f i t mankind by h i s p r o p o s a l ? The p r o j e c t o r sets

f o r t h h i s argument in s i n c e r e , p e r s u a s i v e t o n e s .

As to my own p a r t , having turned my thoughts f o r many y e a r s

upon t h i s important s u b j e c t , and m a t u r e l y weighed the s e v e r a l
schemes o f o t h e r p r o j e c t o r s I have always found them g r o s s l y
mistaken in t h e i r computation. It is t r u e a c h i l d , j u s t
dropped from i t s dam, may be supported by her m i l k f o r a
s o l a r y e a r w i t h l i t t l e o t h e r n o u r i s h m e n t , a t most not above
two s h i l l i n g s , which the mother may c e r t a i n l y g e t , or the
v a l u e in s c r a p s , by her l a w f u l o c c u p a t i o n of b e g g i n g , and i t
i s e x a c t l y a t one y e a r o l d t h a t I propose to p r o v i d e f o r them,
in such a manner, a s , i n s t e a d of b e i n g a charge upon t h e i r
p a r e n t s , o r the p a r i s h , o r w a n t i n g food and raiment f o r the
 r e s t of t h e i r l i v e s , they s h a l l , on the c o n t r a r y , c o n t r i b u t e
to the f e e d i n g and p a r t l y to the c l o t h i n g o f many thousands.
( S w i f t , VI I, 2 0 8 )

It i s a c o m p e l l i n g , l o g i c a l argument developed step by step in c o l d ,

inhuman t e r m s . Shock, h o r r o r , d i s b e l i e f mix w i t h c r e d i b i l i t y to yield

a grotesque e f f e c t . It is the type of reason d i s p l a y e d by h i s economic

projector that Swift i s s a t i r i z i n g , the type o f reason t h a t can argue

such an inhuman, h o r r i b l e a c t through to its conclusions.

F i e l d i n g uses much the same t e c h n i q u e in h i s parody o f the

scientific report. His persona i s the v i r t u o s o , the man of s c i e n c e ,

one who p r e s e n t s a paper on the E n g l i s h g u i n e a , o r CHRYSIPUS, w i t h a l l

the s i n c e r i t y expected of the t r u e s c i e n t i s t . As in the "Modest P r o -

p o s a l " the argument is c o n v i n c i n g l y developed. F i e l d i n g is careful to

f o l l o w the o r d e r of t o p i c s p r o p e r to a b i o l o g i c a l report: he f i r s t

g i v e s a d i a g r a m , then f o l l o w s the s i z e and s p e c i e s of the CHRYSIPUS

and i t s general h a b i t a t , he attempts to c l a s s i f y i t and g i v e s an account

of i t s motion and methods of reproduction, he conducts experiments with

i t and then a r r i v e s a t c o n c l u s i o n s c o n c e r n i n g i t s l i f e c y c l e and l o c a l

habitat. The s a t i r e d e r i v e s its form from the work p a r o d i e d , a s c i e n t i f i c

r e p o r t by Abraham Trembley, a d i s t i n g u i s h e d Swiss n a t u r a l i s t and F e l l o w

of the Royal S o c i e t y . T r e m b l e y ' s paper had been c o n t r i b u t e d in November,

1 7 ^ 2 , t o the P h i l o s o p h i c a l T r a n s a c t ion of the Royal S o c i e t y . It dealt

with experiments in the r e g e n e r a t i o n of f r e s h water p o l y p s and c r e a t e d

a s e n s a t i o n in the s c i e n t i f i c w o r l d . J u s t how much F i e l d i n g knew o r

cared about s c i e n c e i s unknown, but from h i s remarks in h i s writings

we assume he shared S w i f t ' s view of the v i r t u o s o ' s a c t i v i t i e s -~ a

 45

waste of the intellect on t r i v i a l things. T r e m b l e y ' s paper p r o v i d e d

F i e l d i n g w i t h a p e r f e c t means of a t t a c k i n g in a j e s t i n g f a s h i o n the

Royal S o c i e t y w h i l e at the same time making a s e r i o u s comment on

m i s e r s and a v a r i c e and the c o r r u p t i o n t h a t seems to a s s o c i a t e itself

w i t h excess w e a l t h .

Here as in the " E s s a y on N o t h i n g " where the p a n e g y r i c on " n o t h i n g "

was enjoyed f o r i t s own s a k e , the f i r s t response i s the p l e a s u r e d e -

r i v e d from the i n c o n g r u i t i e s o f the s i n c e r e , s c i e n t i f i c account o f

the CHRYSIPUS. The second l e v e l i s the i m p l i e d s a t i r e , f o r the parody

p r o v i d e s the means by which to d e r i d e much l a r g e r follies.

The humor so e s s e n t i a l to t h i s type o f s a t i r e emerges in the

tone of the v i r t u o s o ' s report. It is w i t h a c r e d u l i t y born out of

f a s c i n a t i o n w i t h the m y s t e r i e s of s c i e n c e t h a t the n a r r a t o r reports

many o f h i s f i n d i n g s , never d o u b t i n g f o r a moment t h a t his readers

will share h i s amazement a t the marvels u n v e i l e d . He is c a r e f u l to

a n a l y z e s i m i l a r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the P o l y p u s and CHRYSIPUS and in

so d o i n g he uncovers some remarkable differences;

i t (the CHRYSIPUS) d i f f e r s from the Polypus in the consequence,

f o r i n s t e a d of making the INSECT i t s p r e y , i t becomes i t s e l f
a prey to i t , and i n s t e a d of c o n v e y i n g an i n s e c t t w i c e as
l a r g e as i t s own mouth i n t o i t , in i m i t a t i o n of the P o l y p u s ,
the poor CHRYSIPUS i s i t s e l f conveyed i n t o the LOCULUS o r
pouch of an INSECT a thousand times as l a r g e as i t s e l f .
(XV, 67)

W. L. C r o s s , The H i s t o r y o f Henry F i e l d i n g (New Haven, 1918), I,

391.
 46

The s c i e n t i s t d i s p l a v s complete indifference to the " i n s e c t " that

d e p o s i t s the " p o o r CHRYSIPUS" in i t s pouch. Much o f the s a t i r i c effect

d e r i v e s from t h i s c o m b i n a t i o n of m a n - a s - i n s e c t image and the very dis-

i n t e r e s t e d n e s s of the s p e a k e r . It is a l l r i g h t f o r the n a r r a t o r to

speak of man as a bug, but not f o r him to f a i l to show s u i t a b l e re-

v u l s i o n or f e a r . It is the indifference that hurts.

Much o f the a t t a c k i s d i r e c t e d at F i e l d i n g ' s o l d enemy, P e t e r

W a l t e r , who is d i s g u i s e d as P e t r u s G u a l t e r u s . T h i s famous usurer^

becomes the m i s e r l y P e t e r Pounce in Joseph Andrews. Making him the

v i r t u o s o enabled the author to k i l l two b i r d s w i t h one s t o n e ; he c o u l d

have h i s fun w i t h the Royal S o c i e t y and at the same time conduct a

s h a r p l y s a t i r i c a t t a c k on a v a r i c e and m i s e r s . Gualterus is p e r f e c t in

h i s r o l e of n a i v e r e c o r d e r , he t e l l s us;

A CHRYSIPUS by the s i m p l e c o n t a c t of my own f i n g e r , has so

c l e a r l y a t t a c h e d i t s e l f to my hand, t h a t by the j o i n t and
i n d e f a t i g a b l e l a b o u r of s e v e r a l of my f r i e n d s , i t c o u l d by
no means be s e v e r e d , o r made to q u i t i t s h o l d .
(XV, 68)

We a g a i n r e c e i v e a double image. One i s t h a t of G u a l t e r u s the learned

scientist, amazed a t the remarkable q u a l i t i e s of t h i s o b j e c t he i s

studying, the o t h e r i s P e t e r W a l t e r , a d e s p i c a b l e m i s e r , a man from

whom i t is i m p o s s i b l e , even f o r f r i e n d s , to e x t r a c t a s i n g l e guinea. It

P e t e r W a l t e r i s a l s o mentioned f r e q u e n t l y in P o p e ' s v e r s e ; Mora 1

Essay I I I , 1ine 123, Sat i re I I , i i , 1ine 166, Dialogue I I of Ep i l o q u e
to the S a t i r e s , 1ine 58.
i s the l a t t e r image t h a t a r o u s e s our contempt.

It is i n e v i t a b l e in such a thorough experiment t h a t the q u e s t i o n

of reproduction should a r i s e . The ingenuousness of the man's report

on t h i s a s p e c t , the a i r of innocence w i t h which i t is d e l i v e r e d , helps

cloak a deeper, darker intent in the humorous. The l e a r n e d P e t r u s tell

us t h a t he " n e v e r observed any t h i n g l i k e the common animal copulation"

among the CHRYSIPI. His f i r s t attempts a t b r e e d i n g them f a i l e d because

he used o n l y two s u b j e c t s and these would not produce a complete

CHRYSIPUS. B u t , undaunted, he c o n t i n u e d to e x p e r i m e n t ;

Upon t h i s , I t r i e d a hundred of them t o g e t h e r , by whose m a r v e l -

ous union (whether i t be, t h a t they mix t o t a l , l i k e those
heavenly s p i r i t s mentioned by M i l t o n , o r by any o t h e r p r o c e s s
not y e t r e v e a l e d to human w i t ) they were found in the y e a r ' s
end to produce t h r e e , f o u r , and sometimes f i v e complete
CHRYSIPI.
(XV, 68)

It is a c h i l d - l i k e f a s c i n a t i o n t h a t the s c i e n t i s t d i s p l a y s as he h i n t s

a t the many wonderful m y s t e r i e s of nature.

The q u e s t i o n o f i n c e s t p r e o c c u p i e d the l e a r n e d man f o r awhile,

but f o r t u n a t e l y , he t e l l s u s , not one o f h i s experiments y i e l d e d any

t r a c e s of c o p u l a t i o n , incestuous or otherwise. The s i n c e r i t y of tone

and the s t r i c t confinement to proper form a i d in compounding the utter

a b s u r d i t y of the whole r e p o r t . Coupling a l o g i c a l , straight-forward

p r e s e n t a t i o n with preposterous subject matter results in the ridiculous

This i s what the s a t i r i s t strives for.

F i e l d i n g never l o s e s s i g h t of the r e p o r t he is p a r o d y i n g , often

q u o t i n g from the j o u r n a l itself in o r d e r t o m a i n t a i n a s c i e n t i f i c

atmosphere. The language of G u a l t e r u s ' s paper is as l e a r n e d as t h a t

of the o r i g i n a l . In d i s c u s s i n g the " d i v i s i o n and s u b d i v i s i o n of our

CHRYSIPUS" he p o i n t s out t h a t "we a r e f o r c e d to proceed in q u i t e a

different manner, namely by the m e t a b o l i c o r m u t a t i v e , not by the

s h y s t i c or d i v i s i v e . " The b i o l o g i c a l terminology s e r v e s two p u r p o s e s ,

i t keeps the r e p o r t on a s c i e n t i f i c p l a n e and i t a g a i n emphasizes the

fact t h a t the CHRYSIPUS i s possessed of animal c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , not

vegetable. The CHRYSIPI do not m u l t i p l y by a n y t h i n g so s i m p l e as

eel 1 - d i v i s i o n — they a r e l i v i n g organisms and must be s t u d i e d as s u c h .

The i m p l i c a t i o n i s t h a t , through our d e i f i c a t i o n o f m a t e r i a l wealth,

money has become more than a s i m p l e convenience d e s i g n e d f o r man's

use, it has taken on q u a l i t i e s of a l i v i n g organism and p l a y s a major

role in the a f f a i r s o f men, a r o l e t h a t is mystical and powerful and

uncontrollable.

The s a t i r e becomes more i n t e n s e as the essay draws to a c l o s e and

the v i r t u o s o lists some of the v i r t u e s of the CHRYSIPUS. Here, the

author points out, h i s s u b j e c t exceeds " n o t o n l y the P o l y p u s , of which

not one s i n g l e v i r t u e is r e c o r d e d , but a l l o t h e r a n i m a l s and v e g e t a b l e

whatever." He f i r s t mentions the amazing power the CHRYSIPUS p o s s e s s .

When a s i n g l e one i s s t u c k on to the f i n g e r it w i l l "make a man t a l k

for a f u l l hour, nay, w i l l make him say whatever the person who s t i c k s

i t on d e s i r e s , and a g a i n , i f you d e s i r e s i l e n c e , it w i l l as effectually

stop the most l o q u a c i o u s t o n g u e . " It does upon o c c a s i o n happen t h a t

o n e , o r two o r t h r e e o r even twenty guineas a r e not s u f f i c i e n t , but if

 h3

you a p p l y the proper number they " s e l d o m o r never f a i l of success."

Every man has h i s p r i c e . F i e l d i n g c o n s t a n t l y a t t a c k e d c o r r u p t i o n and

b r i b e r y , e s p e c i a l l y when i t went on in h i g h p l a c e s , and beneath the

s u r f a c e of t h i s s a t i r e you f e e l the a c u t e concern of the a u t h o r . The

s c i e n t i s t goes on to p o i n t out t h a t t h i s f a n t a s t i c CHRYSIPUS has the

" m i r a c u l o u s q u a l i t y of t u r n i n g black into white, or white into b l a c k , "

and even of p r o d u c i n g love in the f i n e s t and l o v e l i e s t women f o r the

"most w o r t h l e s s and u g l y , o l d and d e c r e p i t of our s e x . " A marriage

made f o r w e a l t h and p o s i t i o n i s always a prime t a r g e t for F i e l d i n g .

T h i s p a r t i c u l a r s u b j e c t r e c e i v e s i t s most e x t e n s i v e treatment in h i s

l a s t n o v e l , Ame1ia, but it is a major theme in a l l his fiction.

Thus w i t h h i s s t r a i g h t - f a c e d s c i e n t i f i c account F i e l d i n g t u r n s

his immediate m a t e r i a l to a much broader p u r p o s e , s a t i r i z i n g the Royal

S o c i e t y , the p r e t e n t i o u s v i r t u o s o , and in a much more s e r i o u s v e i n ,

m i s e r s , a v a r i c e and the c o r r u p t i o n that wealth brings.

Both the " E s s a y on N o t h i n g " and "Some PAPERS Proper to be Read

b e f o r e the R---1 S o c i e t y " r e p r e s e n t p a r t of F i e l d i n g ' s general attack

on s o c i a l and i n t e l l e c t u a l abuses. They a r e l i g h t and c l e v e r in their

p o l i s h e d p r e s e n t a t i o n and show why F i e l d i n g i s a p t l y c a l l e d an accom-

plished s a t i r i s t . In them he r e v e a l s a s k i l l and c o n t r o l in h a n d l i n g

h i s form and s u b j e c t m a t t e r t h a t does f u l l j u s t i c e to the reputation

he e s t a b l ished as a s a t i r i s t w h i l e w r i t i n g drama.
 Jonathan Wi1d

In 17^3, one year a f t e r the publ i c a t i o n of Joseph Andrews, the

f i r s t e d i t i o n o f Henry F i e l d i n g ' s The L i f e of the L a t e Mr. Jonathan

W i l d The Great appeared in volume III o f h i s M1 s e e l 1 an i e s . From the

very b e g i n n i n g i t was a problem c h i l d , f o r w h i l e it had much in common

w i t h Joseph And rews, i t s tone was d a r k e r , the irony more s u s t a i n e d and

the b i t t e r n e s s much more a p p a r e n t .

F i e l d i n g ' s endeavours as a d r a m a t i s t had r e s u l t e d in numerous

f a r c e s and b u r l e s q u e s w h i c h , w h i l e h a s t i l y turned o u t , enjoyed immense

popularity. They were f i l l e d w i t h a t t a c k s on contemporary conditions,

on p o l i t i c s , and on p r e t e n s i o n in a l l i t s masks. Similarly his writings

f o r The Champion, p a r t i c u l a r l y h i s "Voyages o f Mr. Job V i n e g a r , " which

were e x p l i c i t l y i m i t a t i v e of G u l l i v e r ' s T r a v e l s b i t t e r l y condemned c o n -

ditions in h i s s o c i e t y . However, it i s Jonathan W i l d t h a t represents

F i e l d i n g ' s most s u c c e s s f u l attempt a t a s u s t a i n e d p i e c e o f satiric

 51

writing. In it he records the actions of a Great Man, Jonathan Wild,

in such a manner as to expose the evil that threatens any society when

"goodness" and "greatness" become completely divorced v i r t u e s , with

all the power and material benefits f a l l i n g into the greedy, clutching

hands of those that possess the quality of "greatness." Fielding pays

tribute to the conventional virtues that have always been admired by

man — virtues such as honour and generosity and compassion — by

presenting them as deplorable weaknesses while praising a l l their

despicable opposites which are embodied in his hero, Jonathan Wild.

It has been questioned by many c r i t i c s whether Jonathan Wild

functions as a successful satire or whether it is not rather a tedious

tirade that is neither a novel nor a formal satire but something in

between the two. It is my intention to offer valid reasons for claiming

that the work does constitute a successful satire and something which

is unique among F i e l d i n g ' s works. Unlike Joseph And rews or Tom Jones,

where the action rises above any s a t i r i c a l intent, to exist ultimately

as something to be enjoyed in its own right, in Jonathan Wild the c u l -

minating effect of the work is s a t i r i c a l .

In his study The Ma k i n g of Jonathan Wild, W. R. Irwin g ives ex-

tensive treatment to the h i s t o r i c a l background of F i e l d i n g ' s work, he

presents a brief account of the history of the real Wild, and of the

biographical material that would have been available to F i e l d i n g . Our

author patterned his hero, or anti-hero, on the l i f e and actions of

one Jonathan Wild who was f i r s t a t h i e f , then a receiver of stolen

goods, and f i n a l l y the leader of a gang of criminals which operated

 52

successfully in London f o r s e v e r a l y e a r s . W i l d was apprehended and

hanged in 1725, and immediately numerous b i o g r a p h i e s were p u b l i s h e d

celebrating his notorious career. Remarkable as h i s c r i m i n a l achieve-

ments may have been, s u r e l y the most amazing f e a t u r e about the man's

l i f e was the p u b l i c s e n s a t i o n h i s hanging a r o u s e d . He was a l r e a d y a

legend — he became a symbol. D e f o e ' s L i f e and Act ions of Jonathan

W i l d was the f i r s t good account o f W i l d ' s life, and the one most used

by F i e l d i n g f o r the h i s t o r i c a l background of h i s s a t i r e . Making W i l d

an a l l e g o r i c a l f i g u r e was by no means new w i t h F i e l d i n g . Subsequent

t o D e f o e ' s b i o g r a p h y , uses of W i l d ' s name and r e p u t a t i o n were for

chiefly political purposes w i t h the r e s u l t t h a t by 17^3 W i l d had

become a symbol of e v i l and c r u e l t y . ^ It was t h i s symbol t h a t writers

f o r the O p p o s i t i o n e x p l o i t e d in t h e i r c o u n t l e s s a t t a c k s on the Prime

M i n i s t e r , Robert W a l p o l e . These a t t a c k s were by no means l i m i t e d to

political pamphleteers and Grub S t r e e t h a c k s . The s a t i r i c a l possi-

bilities o f the man's v i l l a i n o u s r e p u t a t i o n were soon r e c o g n i z e d , and

r e f e r e n c e s t o W i l d can be found in the works o f such prominent writers

of the age as S w i f t , Pope and Gay.

John G a y ' s B e g g a r ' s Opera, f i r s t performed in 1728, employed a

Newgate analogy to s a t i r i z e the Walpole a d m i n i s t r a t i o n in a p l a y t h a t

has remarkable s i m i l a r i t i e s of p l o t and c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n to Fielding's

work. W h i l e many viewed the opera as a l i g h t h e a r t e d a t t a c k on the

W R I r w i n , The. Making o f Jonathan Wjild. A Study in the Literary

Method of Henry F i e l d i n g (New Y o r k , 1 9 ^ 1 ) , p 11
mores of the p e r i o d , o t h e r s , l i k e Dean S w i f t , saw i t as " . . . a very
2
severe s a t i r e on the most p e r n i c i o u s v i l l a i n i e s o f m a n k i n d . " It is

d i f f i c u l t on the b a s i s o f the B e q g a r ' s Opera i t s e l f to see Gay as a

determined s a t i r i s t . There is s i m p l y too much music and laughter.

However, behind the s u r f a c e g a i e t y of the comic o p e r a , behind a l l the

boisterous l a u g h t e r and m u s i c , t h e r e l u r k s a s e r i o u s comment on s o c i e

In h i s a r t i c l e " S a t i r e and S t . G e o r g e , " P h i l i p P i n k u s makes some r e -

marks about the n a t u r e of s a t i r e t h a t help to remove the difficulty

o f v i e w i n g something e s s e n t i a l l y l i g h t , w i t t y , and even humorous, as

being damningly satiric;

It is not d i f f i c u l t to see the image of e v i l in what i s

called Juvenalian s a t i r e . But the p o i n t i s t h a t H o r a t i a n s a t i r e ,
which is l i g h t , urbane, even good-humoured, has a s i m i l a r imagery.
The d i f f e r e n c e i s l a r g e l y a m a t t e r o f t o n e . The one s t r e s s e s
the h o r r o r o f the e v i l , and the consequent f e a r . The o t h e r
s t r e s s e s the r i d i c u l e , and evokes l a u g h t e r , in a sense showing
a g r e a t e r contempt f o r the t a r g e t , an outward c o n f i d e n c e in
being a b l e to escape the dangers of i t s e v i l . 3

Thus i t i s a type of H o r a t i a n s a t i r e we f i n d in Gay, w i t h the

a t t a c k c l o a k e d in the garments of the comic o p e r a . He p r e s e n t s us

w i t h s a t i r e on a t l e a s t f o u r main f r o n t s ; social, political, literary

and m u s i c a l . Jonathan W i l d ' s presence i s immediately recognizable in

the c h a r a c t e r o f Peachum, who i s a l s o a t h i e f - t a k e r and scoundrel par

e x c e l 1ence. Peachum ( l i k e F i e l d i n g ' s Wild) r e p r e s e n t s the f o r c e s of

2
(NewWYork,
i l l i a m 1962),
Henry p.
I r v i252.
n g , John Gay; F a v o u r i t e of the Wits

3
Queen's Q u a r t e r l y , LXX (1963), p. 35.
 54

evil in the d r a m a t i c c o n f l i c t . The p o l i t i c a l satire i s focussed on

Walpole and h i s a d m i n i s t r a t i o n , who are e l a b o r a t e l y identified with

Peachum and h i s a s s o c i a t e s in t h e i r s w i n d l i n g and robbing of the public.

The p a r a l l e l s between G a y ' s Newgate opera and F i e l d i n g ' s Newgate tale

4
extend even to the names o f some of the c h a r a c t e r s involved. There

is a Bob Bagshot in F i e l d i n g ' s t a l e and a Robin Bagshot p l a y s a minor

ro1e in The B e g g a r ' s Opera, W i l d has i l l i c i t r e l a t i o n s w i t h MoJ1y

S t r a d d l e who has her c o u n t e r p a r t in Sukey S t r a d d l e in Gay's o p e r a .

S o c i a l and pol i t i c a l s a t i re pervades The B e g g a r ' s Opera much as it

does Jonathan W i l d , There i s , however, a b a s i c d i f f e r e n c e t o be noted

— in the former a l l the q u a l i t i e s of the comic o p e r a , the sentimentality,

melodrama and the music are p r e s e n t in such s t r e n g t h as to tone down

the s a t i r e , in Jonathan W i l d t h e r e is much l a u g h t e r and even some melo-

drama, but t h e i r function is to enhance the s a t i r i c effect.

In the P r e f a c e to the M i s c e l l a n l e s (1743), F i e l d i n g was c a r e f u l

t o warn h i s readers o f the dangers o f making hasty assumptions about

h i s work, p a r t i c u l a r l y in t a k i n g i t as an a s s a u l t on contemporary

cond i t i o n s .

As i t is not a very f a i t h f u l p o r t r a i t o f Jonathan W i l d him-

s e l f , so n e i t h e r is i t intended to represent the f e a t u r e s o f
any o t h e r p e r s o n . Roguery — and not a rogue — i s my s u b j e c t ,
and, as I have been so f a r from endeavouring to p a r t i c u l a r i z e

The p a r a l l e l s a r e f u l l y d i s c u s s e d in J . E. W e l l s , " F i e l d i n g ' s

P o l i t i c a l Purpose in Jonathan W i l d , " PMLA, XXVIII (1913), p. 29. My
treatment of Jonathan W i l d extends W e l l s ' c o n c l u s i o n s which I f i n d
amply e s t a b l i s h e d by the t e x t .
 any i n d i v i d u a l , t h a t I have with my utmost a r t avoided i t , so
w i l l any such a p p l i c a t i o n be u n f a i r in my reader, e s p e c i a l l y
i f he know much o f the great world, s i n c e he must then be
a c q u a i n t e d , I bei leve, with more than one on whom he can f i x
the resemblance.^

Now the c l a i m "roguery, and not a rogue, i s my s u b j e c t , " echoes the

p r o t e c t i v e c r y o f a l l s a t i r i s t s and can be taken much as a p o l i t e for-

m a l i t y , p a r t i c u l a r l y when the very next remark undermines the s i n c e r i t y

of the u t t e r a n c e . It would have been immediately understood by F i e l d -

ing's contemporaries that the hero Wild was c e r t a i n l y not o f the "Great

World," and t h a t the author was a c t u a l l y prompting h i s readers to make

the l o g i c a l associations. It i s t y p i c a l of Fielding t h a t he lodges

protests that he i s not a t t a c k i n g a n y t h i n g in p a r t i c u l a r and then i n -

v i t e s o r r a t h e r commands s p e c i a l application. The f o l l o w i n g passage

further illustrates this point;

But without c o n s i d e r i n g Newgate as no o t h e r than human nature

w i t h i t s mask o f f , which some very shameless w r i t e r s have done -—
a thought which no p r i c e should purchase me t o e n t e r t a i n —
I t h i n k we may be excused f o r s u s p e c t i n g , t h a t the s p l e n d i d
p a l a c e s o f the great a r e o f t e n no o t h e r than Newgate with the
mask on. Nor do I know a n y t h i n g which can r a i s e an honest
man's i n d i g n a t i o n h i g h e r than that the same morals should be
in one p l a c e attended with a l l imaginable misery and infamy,
and in the o t h e r , with the h i g h e s t luxury and honour....6

F i e l d i n g can be very b l u n t , but I t h i n k h i s complete s i n c e r i t y and the

t o u c h i n g e a r n e s t n e s s o f h i s concern with c o n d i t i o n s - a s - t h e y - w e r e come

The Works o f Henry F i e l d i n g (New York, 1 8 9 9 ) , v o l . X, p. x v i .

The Henley edn. does not i n c l u d e t h i s P r e f a c e .

P r e f a c e to the Miseel 1 an i e s , ( 1 7 ^ 3 ) , v o l . X, p. x v i i .
 56

home to the reader because of t h i s d i r e c t n e s s . Many of the p o i n t s made

in the P r e f a c e are s t r e s s e d a g a i n in the A d v e r t i s e m e n t from the Pub-

l i s t e r to the Reader t h a t came out in the c o r r e c t e d 175^ e d i t i o n ;

The t r u t h i s , as a very c o r r u p t s t a t e of morals i s here

r e p r e s e n t e d , the scene seems very p r o p e r l y to have been l a i d
in Newgate, nor do I see any reason f o r i n t r o d u c i n g any a l -
l e g o r y a t a l l , u n l e s s we w i l l agree t h a t t h e r e a r e , w i t h o u t
those w a l l s , some o t h e r b o d i e s o f men of worse morals than
those w i t h i n , and who have, c o n s e q u e n t l y , a r i g h t to change
places with i t s present inhabitants.
( v o l . I I , Henley edn.)

The a c c u s i n g t o n e , the i r o n i c s c o r n o f these l i n e s is c e r t a i n l y in-

d i c a t i v e o f a w e l l - d e f i n e d purpose on the p a r t o f the a u t h o r . He i s

virtually c h a l l e n g i n g anyone to d i s a g r e e w i t h the statement t h a t out-

s i d e of Newgate t h e r e a r e "some o t h e r b o d i e s of men o f worse morals

than those w i t h i n . " It is o f t e n d i f f i c u l t to determine when F i e l d i n g ' s

d e c l a r a t i o n s are t o be taken l i t e r a l l y . In h i s P r e f a c e to h i s n a r r a -

tive, f o r example, the a u t h o r ' s words o c c a s i o n a l l y r i n g w i t h a s i n c e r i t y

t h a t may seem to remove s u s p i c i o n of any double meaning, y e t Fielding's

very i n s i s t e n c e t h a t t h e r e are no hidden i m p l i c a t i o n s immediately

a r o u s e s the r e a d e r ' s c u r i o s i t y and s t a r t s him l o o k i n g f o r various

shades o f meaning. It is c o n t i n u a l l y emphasized in the P r e f a c e , in

the A d v e r t i s e m e n t , and in the work i t s e l f that this i s a book of pur-

pose. F i e l d i n g is out to expose e v i l , and Walpole and h i s government

r e p r e s e n t one o f the prime targets.

Three c h a p t e r s of Jonathan W i l d were a p p a r e n t l y inserted for

their political implications. These c h a p t e r s a r e i n t e r e s t i n g both for

the p o l i t i c a l s a t i r e they c o n t a i n and f o r t h e i r Swiftian qualities.

The f i r s t of t h e s e , Book I I , c h a p t e r V I , bears the subheading " o f Hats."

W i l d ' s gang i s d e s c r i b e d as b e i n g d i v i d e d on the b a s i s o f Tory and Whig

principles.

As these persons wore d i f f e r e n t PRINCIPLES, i . e . HATS, f r e q u e n t

d i s s e n s i o n s grew among them. There were p a r t i c u l a r l y two
p a r t i e s , v i z . : those who wore hats FIERCELY c o c k e d , and those
who p r e f e r r e d the NAB o r t r e n c h e r h a t , w i t h the brim f l a p p i n g
over t h e i r e y e s . The former were c a l l e d CAVALIERS and TORY
RORY RANTER BOYS, e t c , the l a t t e r went by the s e v e r a l names o f
WAGS, roundheads, shakebags, o l d n o l l s , and s e v e r a l o t h e r s .
Between these c o n t i n u a l j a r s a r o s e , insomuch t h a t they grew
in time to t h i n k t h e r e was something e s s e n t i a l in t h e i r d i f f e r -
e n c e s , and t h a t t h e i r i n t e r e s t s were i n c o m p a t i b l e w i t h each
o t h e r , whereas, in t r u t h , the d i f f e r e n c e l a y o n l y in the f a s h i o n
of t h e i r h a t s .
( I I , 73-74)

How very c l e a r , c o n c i s e and u t t e r l y d e s t r u c t i v e , The reader is re-

minded o f S w i f t ' s Ta 1 e o f a_ Tub where the t h r e e b r o t h e r s P e t e r , M a r t i n

and J a c k so a l t e r the c o a t s t h e i r father l e f t them as to make them u n -

r e c o g n i z a b l e as b e i n g at one time e x a c t l y the same. Swift's allegory

goes f u r t h e r and is f a r more i n v o l v e d , but the p r i n c i p l e is the same.

Fielding is a t t a c k i n g men whose p r i n c i p l e s are so s h a l l o w t h a t they are

worn l i k e h a t s , f o r ornament o r f o r identification. Such p r i n c i p l e s

a r e not founded in r e a s o n , they a r e not rooted in moral responsibility,

they are i n s t e a d b e l i e f s and c o n v i c t i o n s a c q u i r e d as e a s i l y as a new

hat. Such p r i n c i p l e s a r e changed as f a s h i o n d i c t a t e s and those who h o l d

different p r i n c i p l e s a r e hated and f e a r e d s i m p l y because they a r e differ-

ent.

W i l d ' s gang, however, i s u n i t e d in a common c a u s e , a cause W i l d

makes a l l too e x p l i c i t in h i s speech to h i s men; "If the p u b l i c s h o u l d

 58

be weak enough to interest themselves in your q u a r r e l s , and to prefer

one pack t o the o t h e r , w h i l e both a r e a i m i n g a t t h e i r purses, it is

your b u s i n e s s to laugh a t , not imitate their folly"(ll, 75). F i e l d i n g ,

like Swift, found r i d i c u l o u s much of the fawning and ceremony t h a t

went on in c o u r t c i r c l e s . It is i n t e r e s t i n g to note what Fielding

has to say about " r i b b a n d s " — a comment t h a t is not u n l i k e t h a t of

Swift in G u l l i v e r ' s "Voyage to L I I 1 i p u t " when he d e s c r i b e s the court

ceremonies o f the L i l l i p u t i a n s . History w i l l help c l a r i f y this point

as i t r e l a t e s to F i e l d i n g ' s s a t i r e . In 1725 Walpole persuaded the king

to r e v i v e the Order of the Bath " a n a r t f u l bank of t h i r t y - s i x ribbands

to s u p p l y a fund of f a v o u r s . " Walpole h i m s e l f was on May 27 of that

year i n v e s t e d w i t h the o r d e r which he r e l i n q u i s h e d on June 26, 1726,

so t h a t he c o u l d be advanced t o the o r d e r of G a r t e r . This promotion

o f a commoner, f o r the f i r s t time s i n c e 1660, caused much j e a l o u s y

among the n o b i l i t y and suggested the nickname o f " S i r B l u e s t r i n g " by

which he was commonly a s s a i l e d in lampoons of the t i m e . ' ' Fielding

a l l u d e s to t h i s a f f a i r in the scene between W i l d and B l u e s k i n when the

latter fails to d e l i v e r a s t o l e n watch to h i s c h i e f . As a l a s t resort,

after e x p l a i n i n g why every gang needs a l e a d e r , and what the " a b s o l u t e

r i g h t s " of t h a t l e a d e r should be, W i l d remarks; "and s u r e l y t h e r e is

none in the whole gang who hath l e s s reason to complain than y o u , you

have t a s t e d o f my f a v o u r s ; w i t n e s s t h a t p i e c e of ribbon you wear in

your h a t , w i t h which I dubbed you c a p t a i n " (ll, ]k0). However, B l u e -

7 Wei I s , p. 30.
skin i s unimpressed by t h i s f a v o u r and r e p l i e s to the e f f e c t that the

r i b b o n means n o t h i n g , a r e p l y t h a t e x t r a c t s the f o l l o w i n g comment from

Wild;

Might not a man as r e a s o n a b l y t e l l a m i n i s t e r of s t a t e , S i r ,

you have given me the shadow o n l y ? The ribbon o r the bauble
t h a t you gave me i m p l i e s t h a t I have e i t h e r s i g n a l i z e d m y s e l f ,
by some g r e a t a c t i o n , f o r the b e n e f i t and g l o r y of my c o u n t r y ,
o r at l e a s t t h a t I am descended from those who have done s o .
I know m y s e l f to be a s c o u n d r e l , and so have been those few
a n c e s t o r s I can remember, o r have ever heard o f . . . .
( I I , 140-141)

This is u t t e r l y p r e p o s t e r o u s in the Great Man's eyes of c o u r s e , but to

the reader the s u g g e s t i o n is c l e a r . F i e l d i n g is again s t r e s s i n g his

r e g r e t t h a t such pomp and ceremony and r e s p e c t i s p a i d by the uninformed

(and many o f the informed as w e l l ) to the u n d e s e r v i n g .

Chapter XI of Book III c a r r i e s the s u b - t i t l e " A Scheme so d e e p l y

l a i d that it shames a l l the p o l i t i c s of t h i s our a g e , w i t h d i g r e s s i o n

and s u b - d i g r e s s i o n . " Here we have the u n s c r u p u l o u s W i l d contemplating

ways o f r u i n i n g h i s f r i e n d H e a r t f r e e , "whose very name sounded o d i o u s

in h i s e a r s . " Having d e c i d e d to charge H e a r t f r e e w i t h t r y i n g to defraud

h i s c r e d i t o r s by s e n d i n g h i s w i f e away w i t h t h e i r remaining v a l u a b l e s —

W i l d ' s own s u g g e s t i o n — h i s way was c l e a r ;

What remained to c o n s i d e r was o n l y the quomodo, and the person

o r t o o l to be employed, f o r the s t a g e of the w o r l d d i f f e r s
from t h a t in D r u r y - l a n e p r i n c i p a l l y in t h i s — t h a t whereas,
on the l a t t e r , the hero or c h i e f f i g u r e i s almost c o n t i n u a l l y
b e f o r e your e y e s , w h i l s t the u n d e r - a c t o r s a r e not seen above
once in an e v e n i n g , now, on the f o r m e r , the hero o r great man
i s always behind the c u r t a i n , and seldom o r never appears o r
doth a n y t h i n g in h i s own p e r s o n . He doth i n d e e d , in t h i s
grand drama, r a t h e r perform the p a r t of the prompter, and doth
 60

i n s t r u c t the w e l l - d r e s s e d f i g u r e s , who a r e s t r u t t i n g in p u b l i c
on the s t a g e , what to say and do.
( I I , 131)

This i s s a t i r e c l o a k e d in i t s s h e e r e s t v e i l s . The whole image is

f r i g h t e n i n g when one t h i n k s of the power of t h i s s i n g l e person c o n -

trolling the " w e l l - d r e s s e d f i g u r e s " who a r e merely pawns to h i s w i s h e s .

And t h e s e puppets a r e v a i n c r e a t u r e s who in s p i t e of b e i n g t o l d what

to do, even what to s a y , s t i l l " s t r u t " b e f o r e the p u b l i c and p r e t e n d

to d e s e r v e t h e i r importance. The scene is a v a r i a t i o n of the "court

o f Wax" image in P o p e ' s " F o u r t h S a t i r e o f Dr. John Donne;"

Such p a i n t e d P u p p e t s ! such a v a r n i s h ' d Race

Of h o l l o w Gewgaws, o n l y Dress and Face,
Such waxen N o s e s , s t a t e l y , s t a r i n g t h i n g s , g
No wonder some F o l k s bow, and t h i n k them KINGS.

In F i e l d i n g the brunt of the a t t a c k f a l l s on the puppet master as the

source of the e v i l , but a l l the i m p l i c a t i o n s o f a d i s e a s e d s o c i e t y a r e

present. T h i s puppet imagery, as w e l l as b e i n g a s t o c k image f o r the

satirist to draw o n , was e x t r e m e l y a p p r o p r i a t e f o r F i e l d i n g ' s purpose,

f o r Walpole was o f t e n p r e s e n t e d as puppet master by the O p p o s i t i o n ' s

q

political writers. This e n t i r e chapter i s a d i r e c t a t t a c k on the a d -

ministration. It contributes little i f a n y t h i n g to the s t o r y of W i l d

and H e a r t f r e e , but i t does s c o r e some d i r e c t h i t s on the satirist's

The Poems o f A l e x a n d e r Pope, Twickenham e d i t i o n , e d . John Butt

(London, 1939), v o l . I V , p. 43, l i n e s 208-211.

W e l l s , op. c i t . , p. 39.
 61

target. The irony o f the f o l l o w i n g passage i s o b v i o u s , so t o o , I think

i s the f r u s t r a t e d anger and concern t h a t prompted it;

A GREAT MAN ought to do h i s b u s i n e s s by o t h e r s , to employ

hands as we have b e f o r e s a i d , to h i s p u r p o s e s , and keep
h i m s e l f as much behind the c u r t a i n as p o s s i b l e , and though
i t must be acknowledged t h a t two very great men, whose names
w i l l be both recorded in h i s t o r y , d i d in t h e s e l a t t e r times
come f o r t h themselves on the s t a g e , and d i d hack and hew and
l a y each o t h e r most c r u e l l y open to the d i v e r s i o n of the s p e c -
t a t o r s , y e t t h i s must be mentioned r a t h e r as an example of
a v o i d a n c e than i m i t a t i o n . . . .
( I I , 132)

F i e l d i n g does not name any names, but he does not have to to make the

s a t i r e take on a very p e r s o n a l note.

In c h a p t e r I I I of Book IV we w i t n e s s the c o n f l i c t between W i l d and

Johnson as to who i s going to r u l e the inmates of Newgate. It is gen-

e r a l l y agreed t h a t Johnson here r e p r e s e n t s Walpole and t h a t the election

in Newgate s y m b o l i z e s the p a r l i a m e n t a r y e l e c t i o n s of 1741, in which

Walpole's majority, reduced to s i x t e e n , was so u n c e r t a i n t h a t he r e -

signed.'^ Who W i l d r e p r e s e n t s has been the s u b j e c t o f much s p e c u l a t i o n ,

w i t h C h a r l e s Townshend, W i l l i a m P u l t e n e y , and John C a r t e r e t being put

f o r t h as p o s s i b i l i t i e s . ^ The a u t h o r i n s e r t s a very sober speech a t

this point in the form of the u t t e r a n c e s of the " v e r y grave man" which

take p l a c e a f t e r W i l d has succeeded in o u s t i n g Johnson from h i s position

o f power. T h i s gentleman s e t s f o r t h the d i s a d v a n t a g e s o f t h e i r present

10
,I r w i•n , p. 4m0 .

' ' Suggested by W. L. Cross (The H i s t o r y o f Henry F i e l d i n g ) ,

W e l l s , and I r w i n , r e s p e c t i v e l y .
 62

system and even s u g g e s t s a r e a s o n a b l e a l t e r n a t i v e . Yet w h i l e h i s speech

"was r e c e i v e d w i t h much a p p l a u s e , . . . W i l d c o n t i n u e d as b e f o r e to levy

contributions among the p r i s o n e r s , t o a p p l y the g a r n i s h t o h i s own u s e ,

and to s t r u t o p e n l y in the ornaments he had s t r i p p e d from Johnson" (I I,

156). It is s i g n i f i c a n t t h a t W i l d i s always g r e a t , he r i s e s above e v e r y

s i t u a t i o n t h a t c o n f r o n t s him, even to the very end when he i s r a i s e d on

the g a l l o w s to swing high above h i s f e l l o w men. "Indeed, while great-

ness c o n s i s t s in power, p r i d e , i n s o l e n c e , and d o i n g m i s c h i e f to mankind

— to speak out w h i l e a g r e a t man and a g r e a t rogue a r e synonomous

t e r m s , so long s h a l l W i l d stand u n r i v a l l e d on the p i n n a c l e of GREATNESS"

( l l , 205). Roguery and g r e a t n e s s a r e synonomous in F i e l d i n g ' s s o c i e t y

and the great men a r e a l l too plentiful.

To c o n t i n u e t h i s d i s c u s s i o n f u r t h e r , it is n e c e s s a r y t h a t the

political s a t i r e be c o n s i d e r e d as an a s p e c t o f the c o n f l i c t between

g r e a t n e s s and goodness t h a t is the a l l e g o r i c a l b a s i s of the work. This

"fundamental e t h i c a l p r o b l e m " ( I r w i n ' s phrase) is r e a l l y inseparable

from the c o n s i d e r a t i o n of the e s s e n t i a l " b a d n e s s " o r " g o o d n e s s " of man,

a problem which found f r e q u e n t e x p r e s s i o n in the w r i t i n g s of eighteenth-

century m o r a l i s t s . One must c o n s i d e r F i e l d i n g h i m s e l f as a moral satirist

in the sense t h a t he was so i n t e n s e l y concerned w i t h t h i s whole q u e s t i o n .

He took upon h i m s e l f the t a s k o f e x p o s i n g and r i d i c u l i n g the g r e a t men

of his s o c i e t y . The a u t h o r is e x p l i c i t about h i s own views on the s u b -

j e c t o f goodness and g r e a t n e s s in h i s P r e f a c e to the Mi s e e l 1 an i e s :

In R e a l i t y , no Q u a l i t i e s can be more d i s t i n c t ; f o r as i t c a n -
not be doubted but t h a t B e n e v o l e n c e , Honour, Honesty, and
C h a r i t y make a good man, so must i t be c o n f e s s e d t h a t the
 63

I n g r e d i e n t s which compose the former o f these c h a r a c t e r s , bear

no Analogy t o , nor Dependence on those which c o n s t i t u t e the l a t -
ter. A Man may t h e r e f o r e be Great w i t h o u t being Good, o r
Good w i t h o u t b e i n g G r e a t .

Similarly, in the opening c h a p t e r of Jonathan Wi 1d the a u t h o r defines

h i s terms" "no two t h i n g s can p o s s i b l y be more d i s t i n c t from each

other, for greatness consists in b r i n g i n g a l l manner of m i s c h i e f on

m a n k i n d , and goodness in removing it from them" ( I I , 3).

The " g r e a t man" as seen by the e i g h t e e n t h - c e n t u r y viewer had s e v e r a l

12

notable c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . F i r s t he had to possess a r u t h l e s s , insati-

able personal ambition. We look a t W i l d ; " A s h i s most powerful and p r e -

dominant p a s s i o n was a m b i t i o n , so nature had, w i t h consummate propriety,

adapted a l l his f a c u l t i e s to the a t t a i n i n g those g l o r i o u s ends to which

h i s p a s s i o n d i r e c t e d him" ( l l , 201). He had to be i n v e n t i v e , artful

and r e s o l u t e in e v e r y t h i n g that contributed to the a t t a i n m e n t of his

own g o a l s . He had to be b o l d , cunning and a v a r i c i o u s in f a c t , he

had to be j u s t l i k e Jonathan W i l d the G r e a t . All these requirements

were r e a d i l y a t t r i b u t e d t o p o l i t i c i a n s who had become great not by virtue

of t h e i r i n t e g r i t y or personal a b i l i t y to perform the f u n c t i o n s of their

office, but through l y i n g o r scheming o r b r i b i n g o r s i m p l y fawning o v e r

someone a l r e a d y in a p o s i t i o n o f power. It was a common view to see

the " g r e a t man" as conqueror — and h i s t o r y p r o v i d e d numerous examples

in the form of A l e x a n d e r , L o u i s XIV, C h a r l e s X I I , a l l men who lived

I am here making use of I r w i n ' s d i s c u s s i o n of t h i s s u b j e c t as a

b a s i s f o r my p r e s e n t a t i o n .
s o l e l y f o r the g r a t i f i c a t i o n of t h e i r own d r i v i n g a m b i t i o n s and l u s t s .

The "good man" l i k e w i s e had h i s r o l e in the l i t e r a t u r e of the day.

He was r a t h e r an i n v o l v e d f i g u r e in h i s c o m b i n a t i o n of p u b l i c and p r i v a t e

r o l e s , y e t he was always r e c o g n i z a b l e . He was i n h e r e n t l y a good C h r i s -

t i a n , a p a t r i o t , a man of moderate h a b i t s ( i n h i s mature y e a r s i f not in

his youth), he was k i n d and generous, even to the p o i n t of b e i n g t e n d e r

upon o c c a s i o n , and above a l l he possessed t h a t most k i n g l y of virtues,

benevolence. F i e l d i n g ' s works a r e f i l l e d w i t h good men; Adams, A l l -

w o r t h y , and Tom J o n e s , f o r example - - but f o r the most p a r t they in-

h a b i t h i s l a t e r w o r k s , j u s t as h i s e a r l y w r i t i n g s were perhaps more

notable for the r e f e r e n c e s to the great man as p o l i t i c i a n , conqueror o r

rogue. Pasqu in , The H i s t o r i ca 1 Reg i s t e r , Don Q_u i x o t e in Engl and , Tom

Thumb, a l l r e v e a l h i s p r e o c c u p a t i o n w i t h the moral q u e s t i o n s of h i s time.

The type of good man mentioned above is more than we f i n d in H e a r t -

free. While there i s c e r t a i n l y n o t h i n g e v i l about H e a r t f r e e , he i s

virtuous to the e x t e n t of b e i n g too good to be t r u e . His is a p a s s i v e

role in the a l l e g o r y , he s y m b o l i z e s good in o r d e r to p r o v i d e a s u i t a b l e

foil for the e v i l that is Jonathan W i l d . W i l d the a n t i - h e r o is the

l i v i n g , driving force in t h i s drama. It i s W i l d we w a t c h , f a s c i n a t e d

by h i s sheer v i l l a i n y . Heartfree i s l i t t l e more than a prop t o p l a c e

s i d e by s i d e w i t h the monster in o r d e r to enhance the l a t t e r ' s sheer

l a c k of goodness. Jonathan W i l d i s s a t i r e , i t s c h a r a c t e r s a r e not meant

to be b e l i e v a b l e as o r d i n a r y human b e i n g s , but r a t h e r they are to be seen

as embodiments of e i t h e r good o r of e v i l . There i s no b l e n d i n g of the two

as t h e r e is in F i e l d i n g ' s l a t e r n o v e l s .
 65

Jonathan W i l d i s more than a moral n a r r a t i v e , it is s a t i r e , with

all the d e l i g h t f u l v a r i a t i o n s of tone and meaning, the s u s t a i n e d irony,

and the u l t i m a t e goal of r i d i c u l e that i s found in such works as A Tale

of a_ Tub and Gul 1 i v e r ' s T r a v e l s . In f a c t , F i e l d i n g ' s work bears re-

markable resemblances to S w i f t ' s T a l e . There i s , f o r example, the same

b a s i c image to be found in both o f them. In the T a l e the dominant

image is t h a t o f the mountebank l i v i n g in a w o r l d c o m p l e t e l y g i v e n over

to f r a u d , a m b i t i o n and g r e e d . All the a c t i v i t y of t h i s Tubbian s o c i e t y

f i t s beautifully i n t o the image o f Bedlam w i t h the mountebanks on their

itinerant stages the maddest, most dangerous of a l l . In Jonathan W i l d

the f o c a l p o i n t of the s a t i r i c a t t a c k i s the highwayman, the great man

in s o c i e t y ; It is the highwayman in p o l i t i c s , the man who is trading

on the good w i l l and ignorance o f the p u b l i c t h a t W i l d r e p r e s e n t s . The

villain's stage i t i n e r a n t ultimately becomes the g a l l o w s , from there

he swings out t r i u m p h a n t l y above the heads o f the people he has duped.

It is on the g a l l o w s t h a t he reaches the p i n n a c l e o f h i s g r e a t n e s s .

Many of the scenes o f F i e l d i n g ' s Newgate t a l e a l s o suggest the

comic a u t h o r of Tom Jones n e a r l y as much as they do F i e l d i n g the sat-

irist. Here too is found the same d e l i g h t f u l d e v i c e of the m o c k - e p i c

s i m i l e which is used w i t h such e f f e c t in F i e l d i n g ' s n o v e l s . There is

a s l i g h t d i f f e r e n c e however, because here the m o c k - e p i c d e v i c e s a r e

used more f o r the purpose o f s a t i r e than f o r their comic e f f e c t s . For

example, when Jonathan c a t c h e s F i r e b l o o d in the arms of L a e t i t i a , the

scene i s d e s c r i b e d in the f o l l o w i n g manner:

As the generous b u l l who, having long d e p a s t u r e d among

 66

a number o f cows, and thence c o n t r a c t e d an o p i n i o n t h a t these

cows a r e a l l h i s own p r o p e r t y , i f he beholds a n o t h e r b u l l
b e s t r i d e a cow w i t h i n h i s w a l k s , he r o a r s a l o u d , and t h r e a t e n s
i n s t a n t vengeance w i t h h i s h o r n s , t i l l the whole p a r i s h a r e
alarmed w i t h h i s b e l l o w i n g ; not w i t h l e s s n o i s e nor l e s s d r e a d -
f u l menaces d i d the f u r y o f W i l d b u r s t f o r t h and t e r r i f y the
whole g a t e . Long time d i d rage render h i s v o i c e i n a r t i c u l a t e
to the h e a r e r ; as when, a t a v i s i t i n g d a y , f i f t e e n o r s i x t e e n
o r perhaps t w i c e as many f e m a l e s , of d e l i c a t e but s h r i l l p i p e s ,
e j a c u l a t e a l l at once on d i f f e r e n t s u b j e c t s , a l l i s sound o n l y ,
the harmony e n t i r e l y melodious i n d e e d , but conveys no idea
to our e a r s ; but a t l e n g t h , when reason began to get the b e t -
t e r o f h i s p a s s i o n , which l a t t e r , b e i n g d e s e r t e d by h i s b r e a t h ,
began a l i t t l e to r e t r e a t , the f o l l o w i n g a c c e n t s l e a p t o v e r
the hedge o f h i s t e e t h , o r r a t h e r the d i t c h o f h i s gums,
whence those hedgestakes had long s i n c e by a p a t t e n been
d i s p l a c e d i n b a t t l e w i t h an amazon of D r u r y .
( I I , 181-182)

This mock-epic s i m i l e is the p e r f e c t v e h i c l e to make the scene appear

ludicrous. F i e l d i n g uses animal imagery to s i n k the emotion and p a s s i o n s

d e s c r i b e d to the depths o f b e s t i a l i t y . It is humorous, but the satirist's

laugh i s one o f d i s g u s t and contempt. Such e x p r e s s i o n s as " l o n g t i m e

d i d rage render h i s v o i c e i n a r t i c u l a t e " a r e so sonorous and so s t a t e l y

but so out o f p l a c e coming from t h i s s c r e a m i n g , t o o t h l e s s s c o u n d r e l com-

p l e t e l y mad w i t h rage. It is humorous, but a l s o c o m p l e t e l y devastating.

The imagery and t e c h n i q u e s a r e those of a s k i l f u l satirist. Wild's rage

i s g i v e n e p i c o v e r t o n e s as he is the m o c k - e p i c h e r o , but they o n l y in-

tensify the s q u a l o r and p e t t i n e s s o f the whole scene.

W. R. I r w i n sees Jonathan Wi1d as an i m p e r f e c t version of the

famous " c o m i c e p i c poem in p r o s e " which F i e l d i n g developed in h i s later

works. Many o f the s i m i l a r i t i e s Irwin p o i n t s out a r e i n t e r e s t i n g -~ as

a r e the d i f f e r e n c e s . The manner in which F i e l d i n g f i t t e d the components

of the s e r i o u s e p i c i n t o h i s comic scheme i s s i m p l y s t a t e d in the P r e f a c e

to Joseph Andrews:

Now, a comic romance is a comic e p i c poem in p r o s e , d i f f e r i n g

from comedy, as the s e r i o u s e p i c from t r a g e d y : its action
being more extended and comprehensive, c o n t a i n i n g a much l a r g e r
c i r c l e of i n c i d e n t s , and i n t r o d u c i n g a g r e a t e r v a r i e t y of
characters. It d i f f e r s from the s e r i o u s romance, in i t s
f a b l e and a c t i o n , in t h i s , t h a t as in the one these a r e grave
and solemn, so in the o t h e r they are l i g h t and r i d i c u l o u s ;
i t d i f f e r s in i t s c h a r a c t e r s by i n t r o d u c i n g persons o f i n f e r -
i o r manners, whereas the grave romance s e t s the h i g h e s t
before us; l a s t l y , in i t s s e n t i m e n t s and d i c t i o n , by p r e s e r v -
ing the l u d i c r o u s i n s t e a d of the s u b l i m e .
(I, 18)

Jonathan W i l d f a i l s to f i l l these requirements in some of its major

aspects. For one t h i n g , it is i m p o s s i b l e to regard the g r e a t n e s s - g o o d -

ness theme as being " l i g h t and r i d i c u l o u s , " j u s t as i t is d i f f i c u l t to

see W i l d ' s p e r s e c u t i o n o f H e a r t f r e e as a n y t h i n g but g r a v e . Most impor-

t a n t of c o u r s e i f the f a c t t h a t the comedy i s f o r the sake o f the satiric

effect and not the o t h e r way a r o u n d . However, the c h a r a c t e r s do fit

nicely i n t o the r o l e of the comic e p i c in some r e s p e c t s . Wild is the

very o p p o s i t e o f the t r a d i t i o n a l e p i c h e r o , a p e r f e c t mockery o f the

e p i c q u a l i t i e s we are accustomed to t h i n k i n g such a hero s h o u l d p o s s e s s .

Yet because we r e a l i z e t h a t the q u a l i t i e s which make W i l d a great villain

are identical to those which e n a b l e men in o t h e r walks of l i f e to attain

h e r o i c s t a t u r e in the eyes of the p u b l i c , the sham i n v o l v e d in such c l a i m s

to g r e a t n e s s is u n d e r s c o r e d . The manners o f W i l d and h i s crew are c o n -

sistently vulgar, i g n o b l e and even v i c i o u s , those o f the H e a r t f r e e s are

also decidedly unheroic. The s e n t i m e n t s c o n t i n u a l l y p r e s e n t us w i t h the

ludicrous i n s t e a d of the s u b l i m e , in f a c t , W i l d can s c a r c e l y open h i s

mouth w i t h o u t u t t e r i n g something the a u t h o r has i r o n i c a l l y inverted.

The q u e s t i o n of d i c t i o n has been p a r t i a l l y illustrated already, Field-

ing has f i l l e d the work w i t h l u d i c r o u s language in the form of his

m o c k - e p i c s i m i l e s and h e r o i c e p i t h e t s . It i s of course the incongruity

between the t h i n g he i s d e s c r i b i n g and the terms in which he d e s c r i b e s

it t h a t p r o v i d e s the s u r p r i s i n g a b s u r d i t y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f h i s comic

epics. E p i c c o n v e n t i o n s such as the d i g r e s s i o n , the t r a v e l tale, the

d i s c o v e r y , a r e employed by F i e l d i n g in a manner t h a t h i n t s at the

later success he w i l l have w i t h t h e s e same d e v i c e s in h i s comic m a s t e r -

p ieces.

Jonathan W i l d p o s s e s s e s , as has been shown, many c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s

o f what F i e l d i n g termed the comic p r o s e e p i c , but as Irwin p o i n t s out;

Joseph And rews and Tom Jones a r e f u n d a m e n t a l l y good-humoured

w o r k s , in which s e r i o u s v i c e s a r e r a t h e r the a c c i d e n t a l
consequences of some human f r a i l t y o r f o i b l e , than causes
h a b i t u a l l y e x i s t i n g in the mind. In Jonathan W i l d the s i t -
u a t i o n is r e v e r s e d . The s u s t a i n e d i r o n y r e v e a l s an e v i l which
i s f u n d a m e n t a l , i t i s the humorous unmaskinq o f a f f e c t a t i o n
13
which o c c a s i o n a l l y seems i n c i d e n t a l . J

T h i s can be r e c o n c i l e d o n l y in p a r t w i t h the view of F i e l d i n g as a

moralist, f o r w h i l e he c e r t a i n l y r e v e a l e d a s t r o n g moral purpose in

all his w r i t i n g s , very few o f them a r e u l t i m a t e l y satirical. In

Jonathan W i l d the s a t i r e d i r e c t e d towards f a s h i o n a b l e s o c i e t y , towards

greatness in a l l i t s v a i n , g r a s p i n g f o r m s , and towards a f f e c t a t i o n and

hypocrisy in g e n e r a l , i s so i n t e n s i f i e d as to become the dominant strain

I r w i n , p. 106.
in the work. W i l d h i m s e l f comes t o stand f o r more than any s i n g l e

corrupt statesman of F i e l d i n g ' s d a y , he comes to s y m b o l i z e e v i l in its

general sense.

The f i g u r e of the great man as highwayman dominates the satire.

W i l d becomes a symbol of indestructible e v i l , a man who has the cunning

and the p h y s i c a l a b i l i t y and the d e s i r e to c a p i t a l i z e on h i s fellow

human b e i n g s ' weaknesses in o r d e r to a c h i e v e h i s own g a i n s . By v i r t u e

of its f i e r c e n e s s and the c o n s i s t e n c y o f its i r o n y as w e l l as the cal-

c u l a t e d p o l i s h of i t s s t y l e , the work i n v i t e s comparison w i t h such

s a t i res as Gul 1 i v e r s T r a v e l s o r A Tal e of

1
Tub. But nowhere in these

works i s t h e r e a s i n g l e dominant symbol of e v i l to match the o v e r -

powering wickedness o f Jonathan W i l d the G r e a t . He i s a s a t a n i c figure,

but one w i t h many o f the a t t r a c t i o n s of M i l t o n ' s D e v i l . It is this

t h a t makes him the more to be f e a r e d . Because he i s attractive,because

he can g a i n the r e s p e c t of h i s f o l l o w e r s and thus a f o o t h o l d in s o c i e t y ,

he can remain unhindered and unpunished as he goes h i s e v i l way.

It is a strange, completely i n v e r t e d w o r l d t h a t we f i n d in Jonathan

Wild, a twisted, corrupt s o c i e t y which puts a l l the emphasis on the

wrong t r a i t s o f human c h a r a c t e r . The s a t i r e is r e l e n t l e s s l y sustained

— Jonathan W i l d swings out of the w o r l d w i t h a b o t t l e screw t h a t he

had l i f t e d from the p a r s o n ' s pocket c l u t c h e d t r i u m p h a n t l y in h i s hand.

It is a f i t t i n g e n d , but the p o i n t that i s c o n s i s t e n t l y s t r e s s e d is t h a t

the v i l l a i n never r e f o r m s , good does not t r i u m p h , the W i l d s never repent.

W i t h i n the framework o f the s a t i r e the e v i l is s t i l l w i t h u s , the great

men s t i l l ex i s t .
 Sa t i r i s t to Nove 1 i.s t

F i e l d i n g ' s r i g h t to be c a l l e d an a c c o m p l i s h e d s a t i r i s t on the

basis of his e a r l y dramatic w r i t i n g s and h i s f i r s t e f f o r t s in p r o s e ,

The Mi seel 1 an i e s , has a l r e a d y been e s t a b l i s h e d . What I now hope to

show i s t h a t he never abandoned c o m p l e t e l y the r o l e of s a t i r i s t in h i s

n o v e l s , but rather, t h a t he became more a c r i t i c of his society than

ever. The c r e a t o r o f comedy, f a r c e , b u r l e s q u e and d r a m a t i c s a t i r e de-

veloped i n t o a n o v e l i s t who combined a l l these elements i n t o a unique

form o f moral satire.

T h i s mode of w r i t i n g F i e l d i n g c l e a r l y d e f i n e d in the P r e f a c e to

Joseph Andrews. W h i l e t h i s much-quoted P r e f a c e should not be a p p l i e d

e x t e n s i v e l y t o a n y t h i n g more than Joseph Andrews i t s e l f , i t does have

implications for a l l his s a t i r e . Since a l l F i e l d i n g ' s novels are in-

fused w i t h the s p i r i t of s a t i r e , it is e s s e n t i a l to keep in mind h i s

e x p l a n a t i o n of what c o n s t i t u t e s the R i d i c u l o u s ;
 71

The o n l y s o u r c e o f the t r u e R i d i c u l o u s (as i t appears to me)

is a f f e c t a t i o n . But though i t a r i s e s from one s p r i n g o n l y ,
when we c o n s i d e r the i n f i n i t e streams i n t o which t h i s one
b r a n c h e s , we s h a l l p r e s e n t l y cease to admire a t the c o p i o u s
f i e l d i t a f f o r d s to an o b s e r v e r . Now, a f f e c t a t i o n proceeds
from one of these two c a u s e s , v a n i t y o r h y p o c r i s y ; f o r as
v a n i t y puts us on a f f e c t i n g f a l s e c h a r a c t e r s , in o r d e r to
purchase a p p l a u s e , so h y p o c r i s y s e t s us on an endeavour to
a v o i d c e n s u r e , by c o n c e a l i n g our v i c e s under an appearance
of t h e i r o p p o s i t e v i r t u e s 1

( I I , 21-22)

F i e l d i n g r e q u e s t s t h a t we, as " g o o d - n a t u r e d r e a d e r s , " a p p l y these o b -

s e r v a t i o n s to h i s w r i t i n g . S u r e l y then we a r e j u s t i f i e d in c a r r y i n g

this concept of the r i d i c u l o u s beyond Joseph Andrews, f o r the author's

n o t i o n s o f what makes f o r the r i d i c u l o u s have proven in h i s p r e v i o u s

works to be q u i t e unchanging. His t a r g e t s are those of s a t i r i s t s of

al1 a g e s .

But l e t us look a t F i e l d i n g the s a t i r i s t f o r a moment. His best

known s a t i r e s in the Augustan manner are h i s r e h e a r s a l p l a y s , h i s f a r c e s ,

and Jonathan W i l d . In t h e s e works he del i b e r a t e l y a l igns h i m s e l f w i t h

Pope and S w i f t in the war a g a i n s t d u l 1 n e s s , a v a r i c e , h y p o c r i s y — a l l

the e v i l s of s o c i e t y t h a t are the t r a d i t i o n a l t a r g e t s of the satirist.

As Ronald P a u l s o n p o i n t s o u t , however, thece is another s t r a i n of

Fielding's satire in which the c e n t r a l figure is a good-natured man who

is thrown into violent contact with s e l f i s h , l u s t f u l , or malicious

types.' T h i s form of s a t i r e is r a d i c a l l y d i f f e r e n t from t h a t which we

Ronald P a u l s o n , e d . , F i e l d i n g , A C o l l e c t i o n o f C r i t i c a l Essays
(New J e r s e y , 1962), p. 3 .
 72

find in something 1 ike Jonathan W i l d . It h a s , f o r one t h i n g , the added

dimensions i n h e r e n t in the n o v e l , the w o r l d can no l o n g e r be seen o n l y

in terms o f b l a c k and w h i t e o r good and e v i l . In h i s s a t i r e on the

great man in s o c i e t y , F i e l d i n g made W i l d , the p e r s o n i f i c a t i o n o f evil,

the c e n t r a l figure. Our eyes a r e r i v e t e d on W i l d , .it i s he who is the

life-force of the n a r r a t i v e . C o n s e q u e n t l y , the good which a c t s as a

foil to t h i s e v i l is s i m p l y t h a t , a f o i l , it is a backdrop a g a i n s t

which the e v i l i s thrown i n t o v i v i d c o n t r a s t . The H e a r t f r e e s a r e

l i t t l e more than c a r i c a t u r e s . They do not emerge as people f o r they

are not mean to do s o . T h i s i s perhaps why Jonathan W i l d i s generally

regarded as F i e l d i n g ' s best formal s a t i r e , for it i s here t h a t he i s

most d i r e c t l y concerned w i t h the p r e s e n t a t i o n of e v i l . But the pose

of Augustan s a t i r i s t does not r e a l l y become him, and few would rank

h i s e a r l y s a t i r e s among h i s most interesting productions. F i e l d i n g is

not a t h i s best when t r y i n g to make us s o l e l y aware o f the e v i l , o r

the h o r r i b l e consequences of the e v i l , in h i s s o c i e t y . He f u n c t i o n s

best as a hopeful satirist; he is aware o f s o c i e t y ' s f o l l i e s and v i c e s

but he does not i s o l a t e them from the good in the same way a s , f o r ex-

ample, d i d h i s p r e d e c e s s o r s S w i f t and Pope. The l a t t e r a r e d e s p a i r i n g

satirists p r e o c c u p i e d w i t h the exposure of the e v i l , they tend to show

b l a c k a g a i n s t a background of w h i t e , whereas in h i s n o v e l s , Fielding

works in a l l the c o l o r s o f the s p e c t r u m . The w o r l d o f the s a t i r i s t is

f a r more v i o l e n t l y s y m b o l i c than t h a t o f the novelist.

In h i s n o v e l s , F i e l d i n g ' s persona i s no l o n g e r " S c r i b l e r u s

S e c o n d u s , " the hack w r i t e r o r the p h i l o s o p h e r o r the s c i e n t i f i c pro-

 73

j e c t o r who, 1 ike S w i f t ' s p e r s o n a , i s a prime t a r g e t of the satire.

Scriblerus i s r e p l a c e d by F i e l d i n g the n a r r a t o r , often a self-conscious

f i g u r e and one who f r e q u e n t l y looms l a r g e r than the c h a r a c t e r s of the

novels themselves. In Tom J o n e s , f o r example, we see the n o v e l i s t as

p u p p e t - m a s t e r , a man in c o n t r o l of our every e m o t i o n , in Amel i a , he is

a man p r e o c c u p i e d w i t h s o c i a l reforms and i n t e n t upon p r o p o s i n g a moral

doctrine. In a l l his novels there i s the u n d i s g u i s e d attempt to pro-

duce i n s t r u c t i v e satire. As the n a r r a t o r i n t r o d u c e s h i s assortment of

good and bad c h a r a c t e r s he i s d e f i n i n g a p o s i t i v e and d e t a i l e d code of

proper conduct;

Much o f the time (as in Joseph And rews) F i e l d i n g keeps h i s

r e a d e r ' s a t t e n t i o n focused on the T r u l l i b e r s and Tow-wouses,
whose unamiable q u a l i t i e s a r e exposed by c o n t a c t w i t h the
good man. But in two ways the emphasis tends t o s h i f t from
the E v i l to the Good, e i t h e r F i e l d i n g becomes so s y m p a t h e t i c
w i t h h i s good-natured man's p l i g h t t h a t he s u b s t i t u t e s t h i s
c h a r a c t e r ' s s u f f e r i n g f o r the v i g o r o u s wrongdoing of h i s
p e r s e c u t o r s , o r he g i v e s us too d e t a i l e d a p i c t u r e of the
Good. At h i s b e s t , in Tom J o n e s , he m a i n t a i n s a b a l a n c e
between the e v i l and good f o r c e s which suggests to the reader
t h a t not the v i o l e n t l y s y m b o l i c w o r l d of the Augustan s a t i r -
i s t s but the WHOLE w o r l d i s being p r e s e n t e d . At h i s w o r s t ,
he a l l o w s the two f o r c e s to s e p a r a t e , in Amel i a , i n t o the
p i t i f u l , t e a r - s t a i n e d goodness of the Booth f a m i l y and the
d i a b o l i c , almost m o t i v e l e s s e v i l of the noble L o r d , M r s .
2
E l l i s o n , and A m e l i a ' s s i s t e r Betty.

I think this i s an a c c u r a t e a n a l y s i s of the i s s u e in so f a r as i t re-

l a t e s to the changing form o f Fielding's satire. It i s not the limited

w o r l d of the Augustan s a t i r i s t s such as he p r e s e n t e d in Jonathan Wi 1d

Loc. cit.
t h a t F i e l d i n g g i v e s us in h i s n o v e l s , but the whole w o r l d . It is his

awareness of both e v i l and good and the i m p o s s i b i l i t y of a w o r l d in

which one e x i s t s w i t h o u t the o t h e r accompanied by h i s f a i t h in man's

ability to a t t a i n t h i s good in s p i t e of the abundance of e v i l — that

adds a new dimension to h i s s a t i r e . Rather than attempt to show merely

what i s wrong w i t h s o c i e t y , he p o i n t s out these wrongs as d e v i a t i o n s

from h i s own c o n c e p t i o n of a s t a b l e , h e a l t h y , moral s o c i e t y . It is

s a t i r e that is more f u n c t i o n a l l y c o r r e c t i v e than t h a t which he gave us

in h i s e a r l l e r writings.

But as h i s n o v e l s do r e p r e s e n t a new d i r e c t i o n in F i e l d i n g ' s c a r e e r ,

i t might f i r s t be h e l p f u l to look a t the a c t u a l take-off point, namely

Shame!a, h i s b u r l e s q u e of R i c h a r d s o n ' s n o v e l . Pamela was f i r s t pub-

l i s h e d anonymously on November 6, 1740, and was an immediate s u c c e s s .

Its p l o t was a d i s a r m i n g l y s i m p l e one. The d e v i c e R i c h a r d s o n used was

to n a r r a t e h i s s t o r y by means of lengthy letters from Pamela Andrews,

a poor c o u n t r y g i r l in s e r v i c e w i t h a wealthy f a m i l y . A f t e r the death

of the m i s t r e s s of the h o u s e h o l d , Pamela is c o n s t a n t l y a t t a c k e d by the

m a s t e r , S q u i r e B. F a i l i n g to seduce the e l u s i v e Pamela, he t r i e s to

rape her on s e v e r a l o c c a s i o n s , o n l y to be f o i l e d a t the l a s t moment.

When a l l else f a i l s S q u i r e B. proposes m a r r i a g e , h i s o f f e r is joyfully

a c c e p t e d , and Pamela r e c e i v e s the reward of her v i r t u e . The book was

a b e s t - s e l l e r by any s t a n d a r d s , w i t h f i v e e d i t i o n s b e i n g p u b l i s h e d by
3
September of 1741.

Bernard D r e i s s m a n , Pamela-Shamela ( U n i v e r s i t y of Nebraska P r e s s ,

I960). A b r i e f review o f Shame 1 a and Joseph Andrewswh ich f i l l s in the
c o n t e x t o f the r e a c t i o n a g a i n s t Pamela.
 75

The work was the s e n s a t i o n of the l i t e r a r y s e a s o n , but a swarm o f

a t t a c k s , p a r o d i e s , and s p u r i o u s c o n t i n u a t i o n s soon appeared to sour

R i c h a r d s o n ' s remarkable t r i u m p h . The f i r s t o f the o b j e c t i o n s to Pamela

appeared on A p r i l 4, 1741, in the form o f a pamphlet p u b l i s h e d under

the name of Mr. Conny Keyber. This d e l i g h t f u l burlesque is generally

a c c e p t e d as being the work of F i e l d i n g . Shame 1 a i s an i n g e n i o u s satire

on a book t h a t proposed as i t s end the c u l t i v a t i o n of the p r i n c i p l e s of

virtue and r e l i g i o n and c l a i m e d to have i t s f o u n d a t i o n in Truth and

Nature. The pamphlet represented a continuation of Fielding's prolonged

a t t a c k on the l i t e r a r y t a s t e s of the age as w e l l as an a t t a c k on the

r e l i g i o u s and moral views R i c h a r d s o n expounded in Pamela. Attributing

the b u r l e s q u e to Conny Keyber was a t h r u s t at h i s o l d enemy, Col ley

C i b b e r , and a l s o a t Dr. Conyers M i d d l e t o n . The l a t t e r ' s L i f e of C i cero

c o n t a i n e d an " E p i s t l e D e d i c a t o r y " to h i s p a t r o n , Lord Hervey (the

Sporus of P o p e ' s Ep i s t l e to Dr. A r b u t h n o t ) . F i e l d i n g s a t i n zed th is

dedication with his dedicatory letter "To Miss F a n n y , " which was a

c l o s e parody of M i d d l e t o n ' s e f f u s i o n . As w e l l , the general tone o f

Shamela's c o n f e s s i o n is not u n l i k e t h a t of C i b b e r ' s A p o l o g y , which was

a popular l i t e r a r y p r o d u c t i o n of 1740. Fielding hit upon a p e r f e c t

pseudonym and e x p l o i t e d its i m p l i c a t i o n s to the f u l l e s t degree.

But w h i l e Shame 1 a is a d e l i g h t f u l , r e f r e s h i n g p i e c e in i t s own

right, i t s major a t t r a c t i o n lies in the f a c t t h a t i t p o i n t s towards the

Ian Watt, " S h a m e l a , " F i e l d i n g , A C o l l e c t i o n o f C r i t i c a l Essays,

e d . Ronald P a u l s o n , p. 47.
 76

w r i t i n g of Joseph Andrews. Shame1 a is e x c e l l e n t bur 1esque, and as

Watt p o i n t s o u t , it goes beyond i t s o r i g i n a l intention as parody and

takes on a l i f e of i t s own — but n o t h i n g t o compare w i t h the later

novel. Joseph Andrews, t h e n , was a l s o intended as a parody o f R i c h a r d -

s o n ' s n o v e l , but a l t h o u g h the parody is obvious in the opening c h a p t e r s

it i s not r e a l l y s u s t a i n e d . The Pamela elements soon fade i n t o the

background and the s t o r y of Joseph and h i s f r i e n d Abraham Adams takes

off on i t s own c o u r s e . Rather than s i m p l y c r i t i c i z e R i c h a r d s o n ' s

m a s t e r p i e c e , F i e l d i n g c r e a t e d one of h i s own t h a t illustrated h i s reasons

f o r d i s c r e d i t i n g Pamela. The s u r f a c e c o n n e c t i o n s between the two n o v e l s

are obvious. Fielding inverts the c e n t r a l s i t u a t i o n and we have J o s e p h ,

Pamela's brother, a footman in the Booby h o u s e h o l d , s t r u g g l i n g hero-

i c a l l y to p r o t e c t h i s v i r t u e a g a i n s t the advances o f Lady Booby. But

whereas Pamela used her v i r t u e as a means to f u r t h e r her own e n d s ,

Joseph c o n s t a n t l y r e f u s e s to take advantage of the o p p o r t u n i t i e s placed

b e f o r e him. He remains c h a s t e f o r h i s beloved Fanny and t r u e to the

t e a c h i n g s of h i s f r i e n d Parson Adams. But i t is o b v i o u s from the start

t h a t F i e l d i n g intended something f a r d i f f e r e n t in Joseph Andrews than

he had attempted in h i s p a r o d y . With o n l y a few e x c e p t i o n s , such as

Joseph's letters to h i s s i s t e r , t h e r e i s no attempt to b u r l e s q u e the

a c t u a l manner and s t y l e of R i c h a r d s o n ' s book. The resemblances a r e

s u b t l y e v i d e n t on e v e r y page, but they a r e not c a s t in the form of

burlesque or mimicry. ln h i s study of Joseph Andrews B a t t e s t i n indicates

the e s s e n t i a l d i f f e r e n c e in the s a t i r i c ends of the b u r l e s q u e and the

1ater n o v e l ;
 77

Behind the d i s t i n c t i o n between the b u r l e s q u e o f ,Shamela and

the c o r r e c t i v e s a t i r e o f Joseph Andrews a r e d i v e r g e n t m o t i v e s .
In the f i r s t i n s t a n c e F i e l d i n g wished to expose the i n h e r e n t
f o o l i s h n e s s o f R i c h a r d s o n ' s book. T h i s , he f e l t , c o u l d best
be a c c o m p l i s h e d by the undermining p r o c e s s o f p a r o d y , the d e -
s t r u c t i v e mimicry o f the very s u b s t a n c e and t e x t u r e o f Pamela.
But the v a l u e of t r a v e s t y i s l i m i t e d . It is a mode, as J . L.
Davis has o b s e r v e d , e s s e n t i a l l y p a r a s i t i c , n e g a t i v i s t i c , and
superficial. In Joseph Andrews the a l l u s i v e r i d i c u l e o f
R i c h a r d s o n is intended as a k i n d o f f o i l , s e t t i n g o f f to a d -
vantage F i e l d i n g ' s own a m b i t i o u s attempt a t r e c o n s t r u c t i o n ,
a t p r e s e n t i n g , in " t h e Manner o f C e r v a n t e s , " a f r e s h c o n c e p t i o n
o f the a r t o f the n o v e l . 5

Indeed we need o n l y r e t u r n to F i e l d i n g ' s P r e f a c e to the novel to

see what he i n t e n d e d . He makes i t c l e a r that it is no l o n g e r burlesque,

but comedy t h a t he i s w r i t i n g . In such w r i t i n g , he a u t h o r p o i n t s out,

b u r l e s q u e o r parody may be a d m i t t e d in the d i c t i o n , but not in s e n t i -

ment o r in c h a r a c t e r s . Now in h i s " c o m i c e p i c poem in p r o s e , " Fielding

s e t s out to d e s c r i b e the R i d i c u l o u s , and he has reminded us t h a t it is

from the d i s c o v e r y o f a f f e c t a t i o n t h a t the r i d i c u l o u s a r i s e s . Straight

parody s t o p s s h o r t o f F i e l d i n g ' s intended g o a l . Parody o r b u r l e s q u e is

in one sense a n e g a t i v e a r t , it shows up the i n c o n s i s t e n c i e s and hypo-

crisies, all the f a l s e p r e s e n t a t i o n s o f l i f e and l i t e r a t u r e , but the

reader must imagine f o r h i m s e l f the d e s i r e d happy medium. That is to

s a y , the work p a r o d i e d r e p r e s e n t s the one extreme, the parody itself

another, and the r e a d e r ' s a t t e n t i o n , after shifting back and f o r t h b e -

tween the two, comes to r e s t on an impl ied norm, an a c c e p t e d s t a n d a r d .

Joseph Andrews does not f u n c t i o n in q u i t e t h i s way. T h i s element is

M. C. B a t t e s t i n , The Moral B a s i s of F i e l d i n g ' s A r t . A Study o f

Joseph Andrews (Wesleyan U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1 9 5 9 ) , p. 9 .
 78

p r e s e n t , but t h e r e is much more as w e l l , t h e r e i s the p i c t u r e o f society

F i e l d i n g gives us. He i l l u s t r a t e s h i s norm, the d e s i r e d b e h a v i o u r o r

moral code f o r the common man.

The h e a r t o f the s a t i r e , as w e l l as the s e r i o u s c r i t i c i s m of

Pamela, is in the k i n d o f w o r l d Joseph Andrews c r e a t e s . It is in

this fictional w o r l d of Joseph and Adams t h a t a f f e c t a t i o n and v a n i t y

a r e pushed forward under the l i g h t of the r i d i c u l o u s to stand f o r t h

naked and u n d i s g u i s e d f o r a l l to s e e . The s a t i r e is more effective

by v i r t u e o f the i n t i m a c y between n a r r a t o r and reader — the result

i s s i m i l a r to h a v i n g a f r i e n d tell youthat you have a c t e d l i k e a f o o l

i n s t e a d of a p e r f e c t s t r a n g e r making the a c c u s a t i o n . The former has

much more s i g n i f i c a n c e than the l a t t e r . Formal s a t i r e demands a c e r t a i n

a l o o f n e s s on the p a r t of the s a t i r i s t and because of t h i s it is often

tempting to ignore h i s c r i e s ; he is the s t r a n g e r w i t h the w i l d look

in h i s eyes s t a n d i n g on the edge of the crowd screaming "you are a l l

mad!" F i e l d i n g ' s t e c h n i q u e , on the o t h e r hand, i s to show in a

f r i e n d l y manner j u s t how f o o l i s h we a l l can be. This technique is so

much more i n s i d i o u s than the naked s a t i r e o f a work 1 i k e Jonathan WiId

t h a t we a r e compelled to become i n v o l v e d to a g r e a t e r e x t e n t in the

s t o r y and are c o n s e q u e n t l y more i n c l i n e d to, l i s t e n t o what the satirist

is saying.

Parson Adams is the most f a s c i n a t i n g c r e a t i o n in the novel and

the most e f f e c t i v e v e h i c l e of the s a t i r e . F i e l d i n g announced on the

t i t l e page t h a t h i s work was w r i t t e n in the manner of C e r v a n t e s , and

 79

there is a d e f i n i t e s p i r i t u a l k i n s h i p between the r i d i c u l o u s and l o v a b l e

Parson Adams and the e q u a l l y r i d i c u l o u s and l o v a b l e Don Quixote. Both

are amusing f i g u r e s and both have funds o f i d e a l i s m that no setback can

diminish. Much o f the comedy found in these works stems from the pre-

dicaments these two f i n d themselves in as t h e i r ideal worlds conflict

with the u g l i e r r e a l i t i e s of their society. But t h i s same source o f

comedy i s a source o f s a t i r e , f o r i t i s o f t e n an uneasy l a u g h t e r when

we r e a l i z e t h e i r idealism i s never d e f e a t e d . It i s f o r t h i s reason

t h a t Parson Adams i s such an e f f e c t i v e f i g u r e in the s a t i r e . He i s

ridiculous, but he i s good. When he blunders and appears rather foolish,

there i s no sudden unmasking o f e v i l in any sense, he i s a man who i s

far from p e r f e c t , but one who is s t i l l impressively good. His mis-

takes, his l i t t l e v a n i t i e s and a f f e c t a t i o n s , a r e f o r g i v a b l e where

those o f the t r u e h y p o c r i t e a r e not.

Adams, l i k e h i s b i b l i c a l namesake, i s the p e r s o n i f i c a t i o n o f t r u e

f a i t h and c h a r i t y . In t h i s e p i c o f the road his function i s analogous

to that o f the persona o f formal satire. He operates both separately

and simultaneously in the three characters t h a t Maynard Mack a t t r i b u t e s

to the s a t i r i s t ; the " v i r bonus" o r moral man, the " n a i f , " simple and

unsophisticated, passing i m p l i c i t judgement upon the immorality that

bewilders him, and the "hero," indignant and courageous, defending vir-

tue and the p u b l i c g o o d . 7

The standard held up as a f o i l to s e t o f f

E. M. Thornbury, Henry F i e l d i n g ' s Theory of the Comic Prose E p i c

(Madison, 1 9 3 0 , p . 9 7 .

7
Maynard Mack, "The Muse o f S a t i r e , " Yale Review, XL I (1950, pp.
88-90.
 80

the moral degeneracy of the age i s embodied e s p e c i a l l y in the innocent

g

q u i x o t i s m of Abraham Adams. Even Joseph i s more f u l l y aware of the

w o r l d around him than i s the P a r s o n , f o r he a t l e a s t had the e x p e r i e n c e

of t h r e e y e a r s ' a t t e n d a n c e upon Lady Booby.

Adams s e t s out on the highway to London in answer to an a d v e r t i s e -

ment by a b o o k s e l l e r f o r m a n u s c r i p t sermons, and h i s a d v e n t u r e s on the

road s e r v e to illuminate both the e v i l and the good to be found in h i s

society. His e x p e r i e n c e s l e a v e him undaunted, and w h i l e we o f t e n

laugh a t him, we can never f e e l contempt. As W. L. Cross p o i n t s out,

it is the man p r a c t i s e d in the ways of the w o r l d , not the idealist,

9
who i s s a t i r i z e d . Even in the e p i s o d e o f the supposed drowning of

Parson Adams' s o n , when we see a l l his C h r i s t i a n Stoicism peeled off

and dropped u s e l e s s to the ground l i k e a r a i n s l i c k e r r i d d l e d w i t h

holes, it i s not Adams who i s the u l t i m a t e v i c t i m of the s a t i r e , it is

the s o c i e t y t h a t e x p e c t s t h i s type of reason to s u c c e e d . Parson Adams'

s e r m o n i z i n g to Joseph about h i s reasons f o r m a r r y i n g Fanny i s strictly

professional. He t e l l s him:

Now, bei leve me, no C h r i s t a i n ought so to s e t h i s h e a r t on

any person or t h i n g in t h i s w o r l d , but t h a t , whenever i t s h a l l
be r e q u i r e d or taken from him in any manner, by D i v i n e P r o v i d e n c e ,
he may be a b l e , p e a c e a b l y , q u i e t l y , and c o n t e n t e d l y , to r e s i g n
it.
(1, 350

B a t t e s t i n , op. c i t . , p. 5 4 .

W. L. C r o s s , I, 331.
 81

Such a r e the d o c t r i n e s the good Parson p r e a c h e s , but F i e l d i n g shows us

how such r u l e s c o n f l i c t w i t h human i n s t i n c t s . The passage c o n t i n u e s .

A t which words one came h a s t i l y in and a c q u a i n t e d Mr. Adams

that his youngest son was drowned. He stood s i l e n t a moment,
and soon began to stamp about the room and d e p l o r e h i s l o s s
w i t h the b i t t e r e s t agony.
(1, 35D

However, we are not s u r p r i s e d a t h i s inconsistency in the man's be-

haviour, for it is p e r f e c t l y in keeping w i t h the warm and human image

o f the parson the a u t h o r has c r e a t e d . The s a t i r e is toned down to some

degree f o r we can never a s s o c i a t e the harshness of the word hypocrite

w i t h Adams, y e t the e f f e c t is in no way d i m i n i s h e d . S i m i l a r l y we c a n -

not condemn the man f o r his excessive pride in h i s l e a r n i n g and h i s

pipowess as a t e a c h e r , f o r such v a n i t i e s a r e a l l too human and relatively

harmless. I t h i n k much of the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of the s a t i r e comes from

the r e a l i z a t i o n that t h i s l i k a b l e o l d fel1ow w i t h a 11 h i s redeeming

graces, s t i l l p o s s e s s e s these human weaknesses. Abraham Adams is the

v i c t i m of a t h e o r e t i c a l i d e a l o f conduct t h a t h i s own n a t u r e w i l l not

support. He is a man of the c l o t h and thus supposedly a man o f p e a c e ,

y e t he i s c o n s t a n t l y getting into f i g h t s , always ready to defend h i s

f r i e n d s o r h i s views w i t h a f i s t the s i z e o f the k n u c k l e of an ox o r a

huge c r a b - t r e e s t i c k he c a r r i e d . His theory preaches s t o i c i s m , y e t he

i s the most emotional of men. But then F i e l d i n g ' s heroes we d i s c o v e r

are always men of p a s s i o n . Tom, J o s e p h , Booth, and Adams — in each of

them we f i n d t h a t w h i l e t h e i r emotions might be at times misguided,they

are at l e a s t men c a p a b l e o f f e e l i n g . The p o i n t is r e l e n t l e s s l y brought

home to us t h a t weaknesses a r e f o r g i v a b l e and human, i t is o u t r i g h t

 82

hypocrisy that is not.

There a r e innumerable s a t i r i c elements t h a t e n r i c h t h i s e p i c of

the r o a d . Many of these a r e d e v i c e s and t e c h n i q u e s t h a t F i e l d i n g d e -

veloped in h i s e a r l y years as a d r a m a t i s t . The m o c k - h e r o i c s i m i l e and

the use o f e l e v a t e d e p i c language in g e n e r a l , added to the appeal of

such works as Tom Thumb and Jonathan W i l d , but they become a source

o f pure d e l i g h t in Joseph Andrews. As F i e l d i n g ' s P r e f a c e shows, he

was w e l l aware of the advantages the t r a d i t i o n of m o c k - e p i c held for

u n d e r s c o r i n g those modes of the r i d i c u l o u s t h a t a r i s e from affectation.

C l o a k i n g the most u n h e r o i c o f f i g u r e s in the garments o f the heroic

makes t h e i r affectation and e s s e n t i a l a b s u r d i t y stand out a l l the more

clearly. As Mack p o i n t s o u t , Fielding i n c l u d e s f o r what he c a l l s his

classical reader numerous m o c k - e p i c j o k e s - - r a n g i n g from Homeric s i m -

i l e s through the e p i c geneology of J o s e p h ' s cudgel to the hilarious

travesty of Oedipus a t the c l o s e - - where the humor i s l a r g e l y a t the

expense of e p i c forms and the h e r o i c a t t i t u d e toward life.^ But the

language i s f u l l y f u n c t i o n a l , we do more than take d e l i g h t in the bur-

lesque o f h e r o i c d i c t i o n . The novel does not stop w h i l e we take p l e a s u r e

in t h i s added a t t r a c t i o n for it is an i n t e g r a l p a r t of the exposure of

the ridiculous.

When Parson Adams is s e t upon by the h u n t e r s ' d o g s , Joseph comes

Maynard Mack, " J o s e p h Andrews and P a m e l a , " F i e l d i n g , A Col 1ect ion

of C r i t i c a l E s s a y s , e d . Ronald P a u l s o n , p. 56.
to h i s rescue in a t r u l y h e r o i c manner;

No sooner d i d Joseph Andrews p e r c e i v e the d i s t r e s s of h i s

f r i e n d , when f i r s t the q u i c k - s c e n t i n g dogs a t t a c k e d him, than
he grasped h i s cudgel in h i s r i g h t hand — a cudgel which h i s
f a t h e r had of h i s g r a n d f a t h e r , to whom a mighty s t r o n g man
o f Kent had g i v e n i t . . . .
(I, 270)

And on i t g o e s , w i t h the b a t t l e itself d e s c r i b e d in e l e v a t e d language

s u i t a b l e f o r an e p i c e v e n t . The b u r l e s q u e t u r n s the s i t u a t i o n into a

humorous a f f a i r s i m p l y through the incongruity o f the d e s c r i p t i o n and

the p a r t i c i p a n t s themselves. But i t i s not Joseph and Parson Adams t h a t

are a f f e c t i n g a h e r o i c s t a n c e and thus b e i n g made v i c t i m s of the satire,

i n s t e a d , they emerge as b e i n g t r u l y b r a v e , and i t i s the s q u i r e and h i s

companions t h a t appear in a p e t t y , mean l i g h t . F i e l d i n g is p l a y f u l as

he e x p l a i n s why he c o u l d f i n d no s i m i l e adequate f o r h i s p u r p o s e .

Joseph Andrews h i m s e l f becomes a symbol f o r " f r i e n d s h i p , courage,youth,

b e a u t y , s t r e n g t h , and s w i f t n e s s " :

L e t those t h e r e f o r e t h a t d e s c r i b e l i o n s and t i g e r s , and

heroes f i e r c e r than b o t h , r a i s e t h e i r poems o r p l a y s w i t h the
s i m i l e of Joseph Andrews, who i s h i m s e l f above the reach of
any s i m i l e .
(I, 271)

The s a t i r e i s e s s e n t i a l l y g o o d - n a t u r e d , but the novel i s none-

t h e l e s s one o f p u r p o s e , and t h i s purpose is to expose the v a n i t y and

hypocrisy in s o c i e t y w h i l e at the same time recommending t h e i r anti-

thetical virtues — charity, chastity, and the c l a s s i c a l i d e a l of a

virtuous life.^ The j o u r n e y i n g of F i e l d i n g ' s heroes can be seen

B a t t e s t i n , pp. 88-89.
 Sk

a 1 1 e g o r i c a 1 1 y as a moral p i l g r i m a g e from the c o r r u p t i o n of the great

city to the r e l a t i v e n a t u r a l n e s s and s i m p l i c i t y of the c o u n t r y . This

same p i l g r i m a g e is undergone in r e v e r s e in Tom J o n e s , w i t h the final

r e s o l u t i o n b e i n g the m a r r i a g e of Tom and Sophia and the promise of

their retirement to a l i f e of p a s t o r a l b l i s s on the W e s t e r n ' s e s t a t e .

Rural r e t i r e m e n t w i t h a v i r t u o u s and l o v i n g w i f e was a c l a s s i c a l

i d e a l and the ' r e w a r d ' F i e l d i n g p r o v i d e d the heroes in a l l his novels.

T h i s s y m b o l i c use o f c o u n t r y and c i t y l i f e as r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of good

and e v i l i s d r a m a t i z e d in the W i l s o n e p i s o d e . T h i s gentleman relates

to Adams and Joseph a s t o r y of a youth of incredible dissipation. His

n a r r a t i v e seems momentarily to i n t e r r u p t the main stream o f the n o v e l ,

but a second g l a n c e r e v e a l s t h a t it is c e n t r a l to the s t o r y itself as

w e l l as b e i n g a c o n v e n t i o n a l e p i c d e v i c e . Wilson's tale is a v a r i a t i o n

on a major theme o f the n o v e l . It is a t a l e o f a d i s s i p a t e d and thought-

less youth, it i s the c o n f e s s i o n of the l i f e of a man of unbridled

p a s s i o n , but it is a l s o the t a l e of a man's coming through e x p e r i e n c e

to a deeper u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f h i m s e l f . W i l s o n ' s n a r r a t i v e , and later,

i n Tom J o n e s , the Man on the H i l l ' s t a l e , revea1 F i e l d i n g ' s a t t i tude

towards such e x p e r i e n c e . Tom and Booth (Amelia) are men o f a s i m i l a r

breed — they l e a r n t h e i r l e s s o n s a l i t t l e more e a s i l y p e r h a p s , but

still they l e a r n p a r t l y through e x p e r i e n c e .

W i l s o n was by h i s own c o n f e s s i o n a complete s c o u n d r e l . After con-

testing his father's w i l l (on the a d v i c e of h i s lawyers) he went to

London where he soon a c q u i r e d the c h a r a c t e r of a " f i n e gentleman."

 85

The f i r s t r e q u i s i t e s , he t e l l s us, were "supplied by a t a i l o r , a peri-

wig maker, and some few more tradesmen, who deal in furnishing out the

human body." Again the s a t i r i s t attacks the shallowness of the moral

character of such a beaux — just as the principles of Wild's gang were

equated to their hats, so here the character of such a rake can be

d i r e c t l y attributed to his t a i l o r and "periwig-maker." What follows

is a l i s t i n g of a l l the vices which can be acquired by a young man

entering the fast and frivolous London society. However, even in this

intensified s a t i r i c narrative, F i e l d i n g ' s humor is almost as predominant

as the s a t i r e itself. This coupling of the good-humored with the

s t r i c t l y s a t i r i c lends the s a t i r e added depth. Wilson t e l l s his guest

of his i n i t i a t i o n into society:

The next q u a l i f i c a t i o n s , namely, dancing, fencing, riding the

great horse, and music, came into my head, but as they required
expense and time, I comforted myself, with regard to dancing,
that I had learned a l i t t l e in my youth, and could walk a
minuet genteely enough, as to fencing, I thought my good-
humour would preserve me from the danger of a quarrel, as to
the horse, I hoped it would not be thought of, and for music
I imagined I could e a s i l y acquire the reputation of i t , for
1 had heard some of my school-fel1ows pretend to knowledge
in operas, without being able to sing or play on the f i d d l e .
( I , 230)

The description of the fashionable beau is surely meant to be

contemptuous, but Wilson can look back on his own f o o l i s h youth with

such amused understanding that this becomes the predominant attitude

in us, as readers, as w e l l . The passage reveals the sham involved in

o f f e r i n g the desired front to society. Fielding's satire is intense

but it is also sympathetic, he laughs at the "poor, bare,forked animal,"

but it is an understanding laugh. Wilson had his intrigues, kept mis-

 86

t r e s s e s , debauched a young maiden, gambled, f r e q u e n t e d the p l a y h o u s e s ,

even wrote p o e t r y and p l a y s — i n t e r r u p t e d by numerous u n p l e a s a n t

visits to h i s surgeon — and f i n a l l y ran h i m s e l f h o p e l e s s l y i n t o d e b t .

Rescue came in the shape of H a r r i e t H e a r t y , the daughter of the gentle-

man to whom he had s o l d h i s w i n n i n g l o t t e r y t i c k e t . Wilson t e l l s how

he e v e n t u a l l y m a r r i e d h i s benefact<j>ress and s u b s e q u e n t l y r e t i r e d to a

life in the c o u n t r y , away " f r o m a world f u l l of b u s t l e , n o i s e , hatred,

e n v y , and i n g r a t i t u d e , to e a s e , q u i e t , and l o v e " ( l , 254). The W i l s o n

e p i s o d e i s an i n t e n s i f i e d p o r t r a y a l of an i d e a l t h a t F i e l d i n g h e l d

forth in a l l his writings. W i l s o n ' s i s a l i f e of e x p e r i e n c e crowned

with i d y l l i c retirement, an a r r i v a l a t the u n d e r s t a n d i n g of good through

the e x p e r i e n c i n g of e v i l . The serene l i f e this c o u p l e shares seems to

Adams the modern c o u n t e r p a r t of life in the golden age.

Both Joseph and Parson Adams a r e o b j e c t s of laughter in the n o v e l .

The former in h i s i n c r e d i b l e s t r u g g l e to hold onto h i s c h a s t i t y , and

the l a t t e r in h i s innocence and unconquerable i d e a l i s m , p r e s e n t us w i t h

c o u n t l e s s ,1aughable a d v e n t u r e s , but it is hardly s a t i r i c laughter, for

the element o f contempt is a b s e n t . At l e a s t we f e e l no contempt for

them. They are r i d i c u l o u s upon o c c a s i o n , o f t e n amusing and even silly,

but they a r e never f a l s e o r m a l i c i o u s . There i s no f a l s e l a y e r to

strip from them, l e a v i n g them s h i v e r i n g in t h e i r hypocrisy, for they

are at a l l times s i n c e r e and c o m p l e t e l y , a d m i r a b l y t h e m s e l v e s . Adams

and Joseph b r i n g f o r t h our s m i l e s , but never our s n e e r s . They a r e the

key f i g u r e s w i t h whom the a u t h o r c a r r i e s out h i s instructive purpose,

in t h e i r innocence they reveal the p o s s i b i l i t i e s f o r good as w e l l as

 87

the many e v i d e n c e s of e v i l in a d i s e a s e d s o c i e t y .

When Joseph i s s e t upon by two robbers and beaten and l e f t lying

naked in the d i t c h , we note t h a t it is the p o s t i l i o n who f i r s t tries

to get the coachman to s t o p . T h i s same p o s t i l i o n , " a lad who hath

s i n c e been t r a n s p o r t e d f o r robbing a henroost" (I, 65) > is the o n l y

one to v o l u n t e e r a garment to cover a s u f f e r i n g f e l l o w c r e a t u r e . This,

however, is one o f the redeeming f e a t u r e s of the w o r l d F i e l d i n g p r e -

sents f o r us. The l a w y e r , the w i t , the p r u d e , the gentleman, and the

h e a r t l e s s coachman, a r e a l l o b j e c t s of the s a t i r i s t ' s a t t a c k . They

would m o n o p o l i z e the s t a g e in t h e i r s e l f i s h n e s s and c r u e l t y if it were

not f o r t h i s one young f e l l o w who possessed more c h a r i t y and k i n d n e s s

than the r e s t of them put t o g e t h e r . The p o i n t is not t h a t the poor

are b e t t e r human beings than the r i c h , but r a t h e r t h a t goodness can be

found in a l l walks o f life.

In h i s P r e f a c e , F i e l d i n g acknowledged h.i's r e s p o n s i b i l i t y as c e n s o r

of the manners, t a s t e s and m o r a l i t y of h i s age. This responsibility,

we n o t i c e d , he f e l t h e a v i l y even in the e a r l i e s t s t a g e s of h i s w r i t i n g

career. "In Joseph Andrews the s e l f i s h n e s s of the l a w y e r , the a v a r i c e

of P e t e r Pounce, the h y p o c r i s y of Parson T r u l l i b e r , the l u s t o f Lady

Booby, the bad .art of Pamela — a l l are l a i d bare by the kn<i»fe of ridi-
12
cule." And these same v i c e s F i e l d i n g had a t t a c k e d u n c e a s i n g l y in h i s

B a t t e s t i n , op. c i t . , p. 152.
p l a y s and m i s c e l l a n e o u s w r i t i n g s . The t a r g e t s are the same, o n l y the

form has a l t e r e d . F i e l d i n g as s a t i r i s t has changed h i s a p p r o a c h , he

has broadened i t through the use o f the novel to p r e s e n t the complete

p i c t u r e of good and e v i l in a l l their intricate blendings. However,

he has r e t a i n e d enough emphasis of the s a t i r i c to add a sober note to

the l a u g h t e r of the n o v e l .

Tom Jones i s F i e l d i n g ' s most e n t e r t a i n i n g novel. It is a fuller,

richer, livelier production than Joseph Andrews. However, in expanding

many of the b e a u t i e s of h i s f i r s t comic e p i c t h e r e was an u n a v o i d a b l e

s u b l i m a t i o n o f the s a t i r i c a l elements. S a t i r e demands a c e r t a i n im-

p e r s o n a l tone t h a t is q u i t e the o p p o s i t e to t h a t found in the story

of Tom. Joseph Andrews s t r e t c h e d to its limits the r e l a t i o n s h i p be-

tween the a l o o f s a t i r i s t and the a m i a b l e comic a r t i s t . There is enough

of the l o v a b l e human in Parson Adams to p e r s o n a l i z e the s a t i r e and

g i v e i t a warmth t h a t s t r e n g t h e n s it, w h i l e yet p e r m i t t i n g the work to

r e t a i n many o f the a l l e g o r i c a l q u a l i t i e s of Jonathan W i l d . But Joseph

and Fanny never t a k e on the l i f e f o r us t h a t Tom and Sophia do. iden-

tification w i t h the f i r s t c o u p l e i s both i m p o s s i b l e and u n d e s i r e d . It

is t h i s d i f f i c u l t y we have s e e i n g them as humans in a human situation

that helps illuminate the p r e p o s t e r o u s n e s s of the moral p r e t e n s i o n s of

Pamela. For J o s e p h ' s a c t i o n s , amusing and amazing as they a r e , a r e

n o n e t h e l e s s m o r a l l y more sound than those of h i s s i s t e r , Pamela, The

characters In Joseph Andrews are memorable, but w i t h the e x c e p t i o n of

Parson Adams, they l a c k the depth t h a t the a u t h o r g i v e s t h e i r s u c c e s s o r s

in Tom J o n e s . Mrs. S l i p s l o p , Mrs. Tow-Wouse, Parson Trul1 i b e r , P e t e r

 89

Pounce, Mr. W i l s o n , and even Joseph and Fanny a r e not p l a c e d under our

observation in f u l l enough d e t a i l o r f o r a long enough p e r i o d to b e -

come " p e o p l e " in the f u l l e s t sense. We see them as unchanging people

f l a s h e d b e f o r e us o n l y long enough f o r them to become i m p r i n t e d upon

the memory as t y p e s .

11 would appear t h a t the s a t i r i c elements in Tom Jones are in-

c l u d e d more f o r t h e i r contribution to the comic e f f e c t than f o r criti-

cism per s e . The novel has much the same moral purpose as Joseph

Andrews, o r r a t h e r , l i k e the e a r l i e r work i t was meant to be instructive,

but the l e s s o n i s not taught as e x p r e s s l y through satire.

F i e l i n g ' s r o l e as n a r r a t o r in Tom Jones is a f a s c i n a t i n g one.

His persona or mask as n a r r a t o r i s t h a t of the s t o r y - t e l l e r standing

between the people in h i s t a l e and h i s r e a d e r s . It i s an o b t r u s i v e

p o s i t i o n t h a t p l a c e s him in the r o l e o f p u b l i c b e n e f a c t o r . This stance

r e c a l l s the d e v i c e F i e l d i n g used in h i s f a r c e s , t h a t of p r e s e n t i n g a

p l a y under r e h e a r s a l w i t h the p l a y w r i g h t explaining it to a l l who w i l l

even p r e t e n d an i n t e r e s t . In the p l a y s the scheme becomes a method

of r i d i c u l e , w i t h the p 1 a y w r i g h t - w i t h i n - t h e - p 1 ay u n i n t e n t i o n a l l y ex-

p o s i n g the a b s u r d i t i e s in both h i s own work and the s o c i e t y it deals

13

with. However, in the novel t h e r e is the b a s i c d i f f e r e n c e t h a t the

n o v e l i s t e l a b o r a t e s on h i s own p o s i t i v e b e l i e f s and the satirical

Irwin E h r e n p r e i s , F i e l d i n g ; Tom Jones (London, 1964), p. 8.

elements a r e s u b o r d i n a t e d to the r o l e of r e i n f o r c i n g these p o s i t i v e

beliefs. Rather than having p o s i t i v e i d e a l s suggested through impli-

c a t i o n , a i m i n g a t an awareness of good brought about by a c o n c e n t r a t i o n

on e v i l (which I see as the p r i n c i p l e behind s a t i r e ) , F i e 1 d i n g s h i f t s

the emphasis to the good i t s e l f . But he does not n e g l e c t the evil,

and the s a t i r i c a l e l e m e n t s , which a r e o f t e n o f a comic n a t u r e , ensure

a v a r i e d tone in the work. F i e l d i n g can never sound pompous, he never

g i v e s us the monotonous drone of the d i e - h a r d m o r a l i s t , he i s too busy

l a u g h i n g a t s o c i e t y and at h i m s e l f . For example, when he s a t i r i z e s

the p r o f e s s i o n a l c l a s s e s in Tom J o n e s , he does more than j u s t t e l l us

t h a t a l a w y e r , f o r example, might be a v a i n , a f f e c t e d a s s , he shows us

why we s h o u l d c o n s i d e r him s o . The novel abounds in examples of the

j a r g o n which i s the d i s e a s e of the p r e t e n t i o u s among the p r o f e s s i o n a l

classes. The p h i l o s o p h i c a l Square and the p a r s o n i c a l Thwackum e p i t o m i z e

the a f f e c t e d types F i e l d i n g sought to r i d i c u l e . P a r t r i d g e , the academic

barber, is c u r s e d w i t h the same d i s e a s e — he can s c a r c e l y complete a

sentence w i t h o u t i n s e r t i n g some L a t i n , o n l y a p o r t i o n of w h i c h , the

n a r r a t o r e x p l a i n s , he " a p p l i e d p r o p e r l y e n o u g h . "

In Tom Jones F i e l d i n g has gone f a r beyond the s e l f - i m p o s e d limits

of the s a t i r i s t , but he has not abandoned the t o o l s of the satirist's

trade. It has been suggested t h a t ;

As a s a t i r i s t he is overwhelmingly i n t e r e s t e d in a c t i o n s ,
and h i s aim is to d i s t i n g u i s h the good from the e v i l , b u t , as
he l e a r n s how m i s l e a d i n g not o n l y words but even a c t i o n s and
consequences can b e , he f i n d s i t i n c r e a s i n g l y d i f f i c u l t to
judge them except in terms of m o t i v e s . In s h o r t , he r e j e c t s
the s a t i r i s t ' s s i m p l e but commonsensical a c c e p t a n c e of e f f e c t
 91

as the c h i e f c r i t e r i o n of v i r t u e in f a v o r of the S h a f t s b u r y i a n
b e l i e f t h a t an a c t i o n can be n e i t h e r good nor e v i l in i t s e l f ,
but o n l y as i t s motive i s c h a r i t a b l e o r s e l f s e e k i n g . ^

In Jonathan W i l d F i e l d i n g was p o r t r a y i n g evil a g a i n s t a background

of good, but in Joseph And rews and more n o t i c e a b l y in Tom J o n e s , he

was p r e s e n t i n g s o c i e t y i t s e l f , a s o c i e t y made up o f good and e v i l

e l e m e n t s , each of which predominates upon o c c a s i o n . Tom J o n e s , the

l i k a b l e young hero o f the t a l e , f u n c t i o n s as a s a t i r i c v e h i c l e much

as does Parson Adams in Joseph Andrews. His e x p e r i e n c e s in the Allworthy

h o u s e h o l d , on the r o a d , and f i n a l l y in London i t s e l f , never d u l l the

glow o f innocence and s i n c e r e i t y t h a t i s h i s t r a d e mark. He comes in

c o n t a c t w i t h every c o n c e i v a b l e type of v i c e and c o r r u p t i o n but is

never infected himself. Jones l e a r n s through h i s e x p e r i e n c e s , but he

does not harden and l o s e h i s intrinsic kindheartedness. Physically

he is handsome, b i g , s t r o n g , and h e a l t h y — l i k e J o s e p h , and later,

Booth — and f i l l e d w i t h the j o y o f living. He has h i s share o f a

young man's n a t u r a l f o o l i s h n e s s , but h i s s i m p l i c i t y , and above a l l

his s i n c e r i t y , protects him from c e n s u r e , both ours and the satirist's

Tom the boy foreshadows Tom the man. As a boy he 1 i e s to p r o t e c t the

p o s i t i o n of h i s f r i e n d , B l a c k George, the gamekeeper, and he holds

s t e a d f a s t l y to h i s l i e under a s e v e r e w h i p p i n g . To l i e is wrong, but

his intentions are so good t h a t we admire him the more. As a young

man he s t e a d f a s t l y r e f u s e s to harm anyone, o r to bei ieve another c a p a b l e

P a u l s o n , op. c i t . , p. 9.
 92

o f p e r f o r m i n g an i n t e n t i o n a l evil a c t i o n towards him. The novel insists

we view even h i s a f f a i r w i t h Lady B e l l a s t o n in the l i g h t o f the young

man's p r i n c i p l e s . Tom makes i t c l e a r t h a t he c o u l d not b r i n g himself

to h u r t the a g i n g Lady B e l l a s t o n ( o f f e n s i v e b r e a t h or not);

Though Jones saw a l l these discouragements on the one s i d e ,

he f e l t h i s o b l i g a t i o n s f u l l as s t r o n g l y on the o t h e r , nor d i d
he l e s s p l a i n l y d i s c e r n the a r d e n t p a s s i o n whence those o b l i -
g a t i o n s p r o c e e d e d , the extreme v i o l e n c e of which i f he f a i l e d
to e q u a l , he w e l l knew the lady would t h i n k him u n g r a t e f u l ,
a n d , what i s w o r s e , he would have thought h i m s e l f s o . He knew
the t a c i t c o n s i d e r a t i o n upon which a l l her f a v o u r s were c o n -
f e r r e d , and as h i s n e c e s s i t y o b l i g e d him to a c c e p t them, so
h i s honour, he c o n c l u d e d , f o r c e d him to pay the p r i c e .
(V, Ik)

On the one hand t h i s can be seen as a d e b a s i n g i n c i d e n t in which

Jones compromises a l l h i s morals s i m p l y f o r c o n v e n i e n c e . But I t h i n k

this is u n f a i r to the a u t h o r ' s intention, it d i s c o u n t s the sincerity

t h a t the t a l e demands we c r e d i t young Tom. He makes a m i s t a k e , but it

i s not because of a c o n s c i o u s i n t e n t to d e c e i v e . It must be remembered

how h i s a f f a i r s stood w i t h Sophia a t the t i m e , the a t t r a c t i o n s Lady

B e l l a s t o n p o s s e s s e d , as w e l l as her d e t e r m i n a t i o n — and t h a t Tom d i d

not have the same armour as Joseph w i t h which to defend h i m s e l f against

such a t t a c k s . Tom i s a blend o f good and n o t - s o - g o o d c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s ,

o f weakness as w e l l as s t r e n g t h . However, the reproach i s aimed as

much a t the s o c i e t y t h a t views and condemns h i s a c t i o n s as i t is a t

Tom h i m s e l f , f o r the e v i l lurks in t h e i r m i n d s , a l o n g s i d e the h y p o c r i s y ,

Tom l i e s , p o a c h e s , d r i n k s , q u a r r e l s , f i g h t s , and l o v e s to e x c e s s , but

he has the excuse of h i s age f o r almost every f a u l t , and the natural

p r o g r e s s i o n of the novel suggests both t h a t he l e a v e s these shortcomings

 93

behind him and t h a t he i s a b e t t e r man f o r h a v i n g e x p e r i e n c e d such

natural emotions. Tom is always t r u e to h i s p r i n c i p l e s , and even h i s

a d v e n t u r e s w i t h women can be defended on the grounds t h a t they a r e

harmless in i n t e n t . His r e p l y to N i g h t i n g a l e ' s a c c u s a t i o n s c l e a r y

i n d i c a t e h i s thoughts on the subject;

" L o o k e e , Mr. N i g h t i n g a l e , " s a i d J o n e s , "I am no c a n t i n g hyp-

o c r i t e , nor do I p r e t e n d to the g i f t of c h a s t i t y more than my
neighbours. I have been g u i l t y w i t h women, I own i t , but am
not c o n s c i o u s t h a t I have e v e r i n j u r e d any. Nor would I, to
p r o c u r e p l e a s u r e to m y s e l f , be knowingly the cause o f m i s e r y
to any human be i n g . "
(V, 108)

Thus w h i l e we can o f t e n accuse Tom o f imprudence and see him as

being a l i t t l e f o o l i s h , j u s t as we found Parson Adams r i d ' i c u l o u s upon

many o c c a s i o n s , we can never t h i n k o f him as the " c a n t i n g hypocrite,"

the prime o b j e c t o f the satire.

With c h a r a c t e r s l i k e Thwackum and Square the a u t h o r g i v e s us

delightful satirical portraits. F i e l d i n g balances these two perfectly,

each e m p h a s i z i n g the a b s u r d i t y of the o t h e r by the sheer v i v i d n e s s of

contrast of t h e i r views and p e r s o n a l i t i e s ;

T h i s gentleman Square and Mr. Thwackum s c a r c e e v e r met w i t h -

out a d i s p u t a t i o n , f o r t h e i r t e n e t s were indeed d i a m e t r i c a l l y
o p p o s i t e to each o t h e r . Square h e l d human n a t u r e t o be the
p e r f e c t i o n o f a l l v i r t u e , and t h a t v i c e was a d e v i a t i o n from
our n a t u r e , in the same manner as d e f o r m i t y o f body i s . Thwack-
um, on the c o n t r a r y , m a i n t a i n e d t h a t the human m i n d , s i n c e the
F a l l „ w a s n o t h i n g but a s i n k of i n i q u i t y , t i l l p u r i f i e d and
redeemed by g r a c e . In one p o i n t o n l y they a g r e e d , which was,
in a l l t h e i r d i s c o u r s e s on m o r a l i t y never to mention the word
goodness. The f a v o r i t e phrase of the former was the n a t u r a l
beauty of v i r t u e , t h a t o f the l a t t e r was the d i v i n e power of
g r a c e . The former measured a l l a c t i o n s by the u n a l t e r a b l e r u l e
 3k

o f r i g h t , and the e t e r n a l f i t n e s s of t h i n g s ; the l a t t e r d e c i d e d

a l l m a t t e r s by a u t h o r i t y ; but in d o i n g t h i s , he always used
the S c r i p t u r e s and t h e i r commentators, as the lawyer doth h i s
Coke upon L y t t l e t o n , where the comment i s o f equal a u t h o r i t y
w i t h the t e x t .
( I l l , 114)

The p a i r are l i v i n g examples o f the harmful e f f e c t s o f the m i s a p p l i c a t i o n

o f such i d e a l p h i l o s o p h i e s o r r e l i g i o u s d o c t r i n e s . The t h e o r i e s in

themselves a r e f i n e , the o n l y t r o u b l e is they do not make t h e i r holders

b e t t e r men. T h i s type o f p h i l o s o p h y , F i e l d i n g p o i n t s o u t , y i e l d s no

good to mankind when i t s s o l e m a n i f e s t a t i o n s a r e in i d l e m o u t h i n g s ;

t h i s type of r e l i g i o n must be seen as h y p o c r i t i c a l and s e l f i s h when it

d e s t r o y s goodness. The a u t h o r i s a t h i s humorous best in h i s t r e a t m e n t

o f t h i s p a i r of a r c h - h y p o c r i t e s . Thwackum i s shown r e v e l l i n g in h i s

rel igion;

When I mention r e l i g i o n I mean the C h r i s t i a n r e l i g i o n ; and not

o n l y the C h r i s t i a n r e l i g i o n , but the P r o t e s t a n t r e l i g i o n ; and
not o n l y the P r o t e s t a n t r e l i g i o n , but the Church o f E n g l a n d .
And when I mention honour, I mean t h a t mode o f D i v i n e grace
which is not o n l y c o n s i s t e n t w i t h , but dependent upon t h i s
r e l i g i o n , and i s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h and dependent upon no o t h e r .
( I l l , 115)

It i s the same type of pigheadness and c h o p - l o g i c t h a t the

s a t i r i s t attacked in h i s " E s s a y on N o t h i n g " and "Some PAPERS P r o p e r to

be Read b e f o r e the R 1 S o c i e t y , " w i t h the d i f f e r e n c e t h a t t h e s e

c h a r a c t e r s we come to know and understand and c o n s e q u e n t l y share a

deeper involvement with.

B a n e r j i p o i n t s out t h a t one c o n s p i c u o u s f e a t u r e o f Fielding's

satire is that it is only in e x c e p t i o n a l cases t h a t i t makes o b j e c t s

 95

a b s o l u t e l y c o n t e m p t i b l e and o d i o u s . The p o r t r a y a l of B l i f i l i s one

of t h e s e " e x c e p t i o n a l cases." He i s the most d e s p i c a b l e c r e a t u r e in

the n o v e l ; h i s every move i s r e v e a l e d to be the r e s u l t o f selfish

cunning and d e s i g n e d towards f u r t h e r i n g h i s own m a l i c i o u s e n d s . Even

as a c h i l d B l i f i l i s seen as a c a l c u l a t i n g v i l l a i n . When out o f mean-

ness and j e a l o u s y he l e t a b i r d t h a t Tom had g i v e n Sophia e s c a p e , he

had a l l the c o r r e c t answers to j u s t i f y h i s a c t i o n s . He t e l l s the

adults in the group t h a t he c o u l d not help g i v i n g the c r e a t u r e its

liberty; "I always thought t h e r e was something very c r u e l in confining

a n y t h i n g , " he says ( I I I , 151). They can judge o n l y from w i t h o u t and

must t h e r e f o r e find his action praiseworthy, but we have the advantage

o f knowing h i s t r u e m o t i v e , and see him f o r the v i c i o u s l i a r he i s .

Blifil i s the b l a c k e s t o f h y p o c r i t e s , and one on whom the a u t h o r un-

leashes tremendous s c o r n .

As in Joseph Andrews, in t h i s novel we see a s o c i e t y t h a t is in

many ways c o r r u p t ; and t h i s c o r r u p t i o n i s perhaps most e v i d e n t in the

scenes d e p i c t i n g life in the c a p i t a l . But F i e l d i n g a l s o uses a slightly

different approach in Tom J o n e s . Here, r a t h e r than making c o u n t r y re-

tirement appear l e s s c o r r u p t than the town l i f e , he has h i s c o u n t r y folk

16
expose the Londoners not by c o n t r a s t , but by e m u l a t i o n . Every c o n -

ceivable vice or intrigue u s u a l l y a s s o c i a t e d w i t h the c i t y finds its

^ H. K. B a n e r j i , Henry F i e l d i n g , His L i f e and Works ( O x f o r d , 1929),

p. 205.
16
Ehrenpreis, op. c i t . , p. 31.
 96

counterpart in a c o u n t r y s e t t i n g . Even B l i f i l , the v i l e s t o f them a l l ,

cannot a t t a c h any blame to c i t y i n f l u e n c e s , f o r he has not had so much

as a c i t y e d u c a t i o n . F i e l d i n g ' s comment on the v a n i t y o f M o l l y Seagrim

as she parades to church in S o p h i a ' s c a s t - o f f d r e s s c l e a r l y illustrates

this idea;

The great a r e d e c e i v e d i f they imagine they have a p p r o p r i a t e d

a m b i t i o n and v a n i t y to t h e m s e l v e s . These noble q u a l i t i e s
f l o u r i s h as n o t a b l y in a c o u n t r y church and c h u r c h y a r d as in
the drawing-room o r in the c l o s e t . Schemes have indeed been
l a i d in the v e s t r y which would h a r d l y d i s g r a c e the c o n c l a v e .
Here i s a m i n i s t r y , and here i s an o p p o s i t i o n . Here a r e p l o t s
and c i r c u m v e n t i o n s , p a r t i e s and f a c t i o n s , equal to those which
are to be found in c o u r t s .
Nor a r e the women here l e s s p r a c t i s e d in the h i g h e s t
f e m i n i n e a r t s than t h e i r f a i r s u p e r i o r s in q u a l i t y and f o r t u n e .
Here are prudes and c o q u e t t e s . Here a r e d r e s s i n g and o g l i n g ,
f a l s e h o o d , e n v y , m a l i c e , s c a n d a l ; in s h o r t , e v e r y t h i n g which
is common to the most s p l e n d i d assembly o r p o l i t e s t c i r c l e .
Let those of high l i f e , t h e r e f o r e , no longer d e s p i s e the i g -
norance o f t h e i r i n f e r i o r s , nor the v u l g a r any l o n g e r r a i l a t
the v i c e s of t h e i r b e t t e r s .
(Ill, 169)

There i s the f e e l i n g in the novel t h a t the i n h a b i t a n t s of the

c o u n t r y do have an advantage over those o f the c i t y , but the s u g g e s t i o n

seems to be t h a t it is through n o v i r t u e o f t h e i r own. However, those

who a r e aware of the advantages of c o u n t r y life, people l i k e Allworthy,

and W i l s o n , a r e a b l e to p r a c t i c e a benevolence in t h i s rural setting

t h a t would be i m p o s s i b l e in the c i t y . It is e a s i e r to l i v e " t h e good

life" in the c o u n t r y , away from the e v i l s o f the town, f o r it i s man

that i s the e v i l , and the crowded, b u s t l i n g c o n d i t i o n s of the city

breed c o r r u p t i o n .

There i s more c r i t i c i s m of s o c i e t y i n v o l v e d in the novel than is

u s u a l l y supposed. But w h i l e the s a t i r e is often sharp, there is the

tendency to f o r g e t F i e l d i n g the s a t i r i s t in the presence o f Fielding

the h u m o r i s t . The humor o v e r r i d e s the s a t i r e in such i n s t a n c e s a s ,

f o r example, Tom's d i s c o v e r y o f the p h i l o s o p h e r Square "among o t h e r

female u t e n s i l s " in M o l l y S e a g r i m ' s c l o s e t . It i s a v i v i d p i c t u r e we

get o f Square s q u a t t i n g in r i d i c u l o u s f a s h i o n , one of M o l l y ' s nightcaps

on h i s head, and h i s two l a r g e eyes s t a r i n g d i r e c t l y at Jones. We

almost f o r g e t in the l a u g h t e r o f the moment the s e r i o u s implications

involved in Tom's sudden u n v e i l i n g o f h i s t e a c h e r ' s hypocrisy.

In Tom Jones F i e l d i n g ' s m o c k - e p i c d i c t i o n reaches i t s greatest

heights. The b a t t l e scenes, i n v o c a t i o n s , and h e r o i c s i m i l e s have an

exuberance t h a t s u r p a s s e s a n y t h i n g in the e a r l i e r works. Molly's

battle in the churchyard (Bk IV, ch 8 ) , the f i s t fight i n v o l v i n g Tom,

Thwackum, Western and B l i f i l (Bk V, chs 1 0 - 1 2 ) , and the s t r u g g l e at

the inn at Upton (Bk IX, ch 3) > p r o v i d e o p p o r t u n i t i e s for the author

to e x e r c i s e h i s t a l e n t s for this type of b u r l e s q u e d i c t i o n to the

fullest. But the b u r l e s q u e of the h e r o i c t r a d i t i o n i s c a r r i e d on

primarily f o r the sake o f the comedy i t p r o v i d e s . These scenes add

l i f e and c o l o u r , and the p l e a s u r e is in the language i t s e l f more than

in any s a t i r i c i m p l i c a t i o n s t h e r e might be. The h e r o i c s i m i l e s though,

a r e more s u b t l y blended w i t h the n a r r a t i v e than a r e the m o c k - e p i c b a t t l i

For example, e a r l y in the novel M r s . W i l k i n s is d e s c r i b e d as a k i t e ;

Not o t h e r w i s e than when a k i t e , tremendous b i r d , i s beheld by

the f e a t h e r e d g e n e r a t i o n s o a r i n g a l o f t , and h o v e r i n g o v e r t h e i r
heads, the amorous dove, and every innocent l i t t l e b i r d , spread
wide the a l a r m , and f l y t r e m b l i n g to t h e i r h i d i n g - p l a c e s . He
p r o u d l y beats the a i r , c o n s c i o u s o f h i s d i g n i t y , and m e d i t a t e s
 98

intended m i s c h i e f .

F i e l d i n g goes on to e x p l a i n h i s s i m i l e ;

It i s my i n t e n t i o n , t h e r e f o r e , t o s i g n i f y , t h a t , as i t i s the
n a t u r e of a k i t e to devour l i t t l e b i r d s , so i t is the n a t u r e
o f such persons as M r s . W i l k i n s t o i n s u l t and t y r a n n i z e over
l i t t l e p e o p l e . T h i s b e i n g indeed the means which they use to
recompense to themselves t h e i r extreme s e r v i l i t y and c o n d e s c e n -
s i o n to t h e i r s u p e r i o r s ; f o r n o t h i n g can be more r e a s o n a b l e
than t h a t s l a v e s and f l a t t e r e r s s h o u l d e x a c t the same t a x e s on
a l l below them, which they themselves pay to a l l above them.
( I N , 32)

Now t h i s idea i s in essence l i t t l e d i f f e r e n t from t h a t e x p r e s s e d

in the d i s s e r t a t i o n c o n c e r n i n g high people and low p e o p l e in Joseph

Andrews. Depending upon o n e ' s p o s i t i o n in the s o c i a l o r d e r , one must

choose whether " t o be a g r e a t man a t s i x in the m o r n i n g , o r a t two in

the a f t e r n o o n " ( l , 181). The s a t i r i s t b r i n g s out the e s s e n t i a l petti-

ness o f human n a t u r e as he d e s c r i b e s a b a s i c t r u t h o f our s o c i a l structure.

In Joseph Andrews, and to a g r e a t e r e x t e n t in Tom J o n e s , we see

F i e l d i n g the m o r a l i s t emerging and the s a t i r i s t fading further and

further i n t o the background. The term m o r a l i s t seems somehow to have

the wrong c o n n o t a t i o n to be a p p l i e d to the a u t h o r o f these two comic

n o v e l s , but F i e l d i n g ' s purpose was to i n s t r u c t as w e l l as to e n t e r t a i n .

It is a f i n e line 1 am drawing between s a t i r i s t and m o r a l i s t ; by the

former I mean the a r t i s t concerned p r i m a r i l y w i t h the exposure o f v i c e ,

w i t h the p r e s e n t a t i o n o f the e v i l in s o c i e t y ; whereas w i t h the latter,

the m o r a l i s t , I r e f e r to the a r t i s t i n t e n t upon d e p i c t i n g a way o f

l i f e as an a l t e r n a t i v e . The l a t t e r is one who sees the e v i l but a l s o

the p o s s i b i l i t i e s o f good in s o c i e t y and d e s c r i b e s b o t h . In Tom Jones

 99

F i e l d i n g s t r u c k a happy balance between s a t i r i s t and m o r a l i s t t h a t was

not to be reproduced in Amel i a , h i s f i n a l novel.

There i s a d a r k e n i n g of tone in Ame1ia. i t suggests an a n g r i e r

F i e l d i n g , one whose years as p o l i c e - c o u r t m a g i s t r a t e of f i r s t Bow S t r e e t ,

and then the whole o f the County of M i d d l e s e x , w e r e o b v i o u s l y having their

effects. One c r i t i c , Andrew W r i g h t , f e e l s that in the novel " t h e s a -

t i r i c mode becomes open and raw; the f e s t i v e i n t e n t i o n of the a u t h o r

o f Joseph And rews and Tom Jones has given way to the s e v e r i t i e s of

angry hope, and angry d e s p a i r . " ^ It is more a case of the satirist

g i v i n g way c o m p l e t e l y to the m o r a l i s t . The work r e p r e s e n t s an i n e x -

o r a b l e exposure of the wrongs in s o c i e t y . There i s l i t t l e e v i d e n c e

of comic enjoyment, r a t h e r than the absurd and r i d i c u l o u s we are shown

evil in i t s most sombre t o n e s . There is no sudden exposure of sham

and h y p o c r i s y t h a t d i s s o l v e s the s a t i r i c t a r g e t in r i d i c u l e . The

victim is d r i v e n ahead o f the hunter l i k e a l i o n b e f o r e the beaters

until there i s s i m p l y no p l a c e l e f t to h i d e . The hunter is relentless,

the e v i l is e x p o s e d , but the s p o r t of s a t i r e is l a c k i n g . Fielding is

i n t e n t upon d e s c r i b i n g moral wrongs in h i s s o c i e t y but not upon s a -

tirizing those wrongs. A m e l i a i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d by a sentimenta1ism

quite foreign to the a u t h o r ' s e a r l i e r works. Never b e f o r e had he so

indulged in e m o t i o n a l i s m and melodrama. F i e l d i n g ' s preoccupation with

B o o t h ' s unrewarded m e r i t and w i t h the general i n d i f f e r e n c e of the

Andrew W r i g h t , Henry F i e l d i n g , Mask and F e a s t , (London, 1965),

P. 173.
 100

aristocracy in t h e i r treatment of the lower c l a s s e s i s e x p r e s s e d in

gloomy t o n e s . S a t i r e has been r e p l a c e d by sour s e n t i m e n t . Fielding

laments these wrongs in dour f a s h i o n , but he does not employ satire

to l a s h out a t the e v i l . B o o t h ' s weaknesses and h i s own c o n v i c t i o n s

t h a t f a t e had d e a l t too h a r s h l y w i t h him, f o r example, would them-

s e l v e s have been o b j e c t s o f s a t i r i c a t t a c k in the e a r l i e r Fielding.

B o o t h ' s weaknesses a r e f o r g i v a b l e p e r h a p s , but not so h i s own insist-

ence t h a t he should be p i t i e d rather than a r r a i g n e d because of his

great personal suffering.

The novel i s f i l l e d w i t h the melodrama, the sudden inexplicable

changes in c h a r a c t e r , and the e x t r a o r d i n a r y coincidences that Fielding

satirized in h i s p l a y s . Booth's miraculous conversion a f t e r reading

the sermons o f Dr. Barrow d u r i n g h i s l a s t confinement i s as unexpected

and u n c o n v i n c i n g as any of the f i f t h - a c t r e v e r s a l s of c h a r a c t e r which

the a u t h o r so e f f e c t i v e l y mocks in h i s " c h a p t e r c o n c e r n i n g the mar-

vellous" in Tom J o n e s . It is a change t h a t i n s t e a d o f b e i n g d r a m a t i -

c a l l y rendered i s seemingly made f o r the sake o f c o n v e n i e n c e . The

plot requires this change in Booth, u n c o n v i n c i n g as i t may be. Simi-

larly, the c o i n c i d e n c e t h a t b r i n g s the s u p p o s e d l y d y i n g Robinson i n t o

the same house w i t h Booth so t h a t he may c o n f e s s , and the subsequent

r e s t o r a t i o n o f A m e l i a ' s l e g a c y , i s the same l a s t - m i n u t e t u r n of fortune

t h a t F i e l d i n g s a t i r ized w i t h the end ing o f The A u t h o r ' s Farce when

L u c k l e s s was r e v e a l e d to be a p r i n c e and a l l the c h a r a c t e r s on s t a g e

to be in some way connected w i t h royal families. In Ame1 i a , F i e l d i n g

has a l l but abandoned s a t i r e as a weapon t o use a g a i n s t the e v i l he

 101

sees in the s o c i e t y around him.

In Tom Jones we f i n d the a u t h o r r e m a r k i n g : " I n my humble o p i n i o n ,

the t r u e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of the p r e s e n t beau monde i s r a t h e r f o l l y than

v i c e , and the o n l y e p i t h e t which i t deserves i s t h a t o f frivolous."

(Bk x i v , ch I) How d i f f e r e n t in tone i s t h i s from the remarks he

makes in h i s d e d i c a t i o n to Ralph A l l e n which p r e f a c e s Amel i a , in which

he says h i s d e s i g n is " t o promote the cause o f v i r t u e , and to expose

some of the most g l a r i n g e v i l s , as w e l l p u b l i c as p r i v a t e , which a t

present i n f e s t the c o u n t r y . " How much d a r k e r and more s e r i o u s the in-

tent. The l i v e l y s a t i r e of the e a r l i e r works has been r e p l a c e d by the

sentimental and the m o r a l i s t i c .

 Concl us ion

With the p r i v i l e g e of being a b l e to look a t the a u t h o r ' s complete

w o r k s , we have the advantage o f s e e i n g what a n a t u r a l change i t was in

Henry F i e l d i n g from s a t i r i s t to n o v e l i s t . Throughout h i s literary

c a r e e r he was compelled to w r i t e w i t h instruction in mind. As a

dramatist this i n s t r u c t i v e bent took the form of the s a t i r e o f his

f a r c e s and b u r l e s q u e s through which he p o i n t e d out the c o r r u p t i o n in

contemporary p o l i t i c s , the degeneracy of the l i t e r a r y s t a n d a r d s and

t a s t e s of the a g e , and the general d i s e a s e d s t a t e of h i s s o c i e t y ' s

morals. A f t e r the L i c e n s i n g A c t ended h i s d r a m a t i c c a r e e r he c o n t i n u e d

t h i s s a t i r i c v e i n in h i s p r o s e , assuming the r o l e o f Augustan satirist

upon many o c c a s i o n s and r e v e a l i n g an a d m i r a b l e competence in w r i t i n g

s a t i r e of a S w i f t i a n n a t u r e . The Mi see 11 an i e s , and Jonathan W i l d in

particular, r e p r e s e n t a c l i m a x to t h i s mode o f w r i t i n g . Shame1 a then

can be seen as a new d i r e c t i o n in h i s work, the b e g i n n i n g of a new

form of s a t i r e . T h i s parody o f R i c h a r d s o n ' s novel is p r i m a r i l y lit-

 103

erary s a t i r e , " f i c t i o n laughing at f i c t i o n , " but the b u r l e s q u e was

to lead him towards a c o m p l e t e l y new k i n d o f E n g l i s h n o v e l . Joseph

Andrews was a c o n t i n u a t i o n o f the a t t a c k on R i c h a r d s o n , but i t was a

d e e p e r , s u b t l e r and f u r t h e r - r e a c h i n g a t t a c k . More than a comment on

literary s t y l e or even f a l s e p r e m i s e s , i t a t t a c k e d R i c h a r d s o n ' s whole

concept o f l i f e as i t appeared in h i s n o v e l . The r e s u l t was a work of

a r t and m o r a l i t y , a work w h i c h , f o r a l l i t s u p r o a r i o u s humour, is

u l t i m a t e l y a moral book.

Tom Jones is the next stage al ong t h i s p a t h , but at e v e r y step

the s a t i r i c a l elements fade f u r t h e r i n t o the background in relation

to the moral o v e r t o n e s of the work. There i s s t i l l the i m p l i e d criti-

cism of the type o f novel R i c h a r d s o n was w r i t i n g , still the m o c k - e p i c

d e v i c e s used to emphasize the a b s u r d i t y of man's p r e t e n s i o n s , but

there i s o f f e r e d so much more as w e l l . In Tom Jones the n o v e l i s t is

concerned more w i t h p o i n t i n g out the t o t a l s t r u c t u r e of s o c i e t y than

he i s w i t h d e p i c t i n g the e v i l s in i t . The element o f exposure is p r e s e n t ,

but the emphasis has s h i f t e d from the n e g a t i v e t o a p o s i t i v e portrayal,

one in which the good elements win out o v e r the e v i l . The s a t i r e is

imbedded d e e p l y in the l a r g e r f u n c t i o n of the n o v e l i s t which is t o w r i t e

an e n t e r t a i n i n g novel t h a t is a t the same time m o r a l l y instructive.

There i s the same exposure o f v i c e , c o r r u p t i o n , m a l i c e , and p r i d e on

Maurice Johnson, F i e l d i n g ' s A r t o f Ficttnon ( P h i l a d e l p h i a , 1961),

p.171.
 104

every s o c i a l l e v e l and in both c o u n t r y and c i t y s e t t i n g s , but the

s a t i r e e x i s t s f o r what it contributes to the e s s e n t i a l human comedy

that is Tom J o n e s .

With Shamela, t h e n , F i e l d i n g embarked on a path t h a t was to see

him g r a d u a l l y change from s a t i r i s t t o the m o r a l i s t a u t h o r o f A m e l i a .

Joseph Andrews and Tom J o n e s , however, h i s m o c k - e p i c s of the road,

represent a d e l i g h t f u l b l e n d i n g of s a t i r i s t and m o r a l i s t . In these

works we can a p p r e c i a t e the s i n c e r e m o r a l i t y t h a t l a y behind h i s fiction

w h i l e a t the same time e n j o y the b e n e f i t s of h i s l i v e l y , often playful,

satiric nature.
 S e l e c t e d B i b l iography

Banerji, H. K. Henry F i e l d i n g , His L i f e and Works. Oxford, 1929.

B a t e s o n , F.W. E n g l i s h Comic Drama 1700-1750. Oxford, 1929.

B a t t e s t i n , M a r t i n C. The Moral B a s i s of F i e l d i n g ' s A r t . A Study o f

Joseph Andrews. Wesleyan U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1959.

B o o t h , Wayne C. The R h e t o r i c of Fiction. U n i v e r s i t y of Chicago

P r e s s , 1961.

B u t t , John. Fielding ( " W r i t e r s and T h e i r Works, No. 57.") London,

1954.

C o l e y , W i l l i a m B. "The Background of F i e l d i n g ' s L a u g h t e r . " ELH,

XXVI (1959), 229-52.

C r o s s , W i l b u r L. The H i s t o r y of Henry F i e l d i n g . 3 vols. New Haven,

1918.

Digeon, A u r e l i e n . The Novels of F i e l d i n g . London, 1925, t r . of

Les Romans de F i e l d i n g ( P a r i s h 1923)•

Dyson, A . E . " S a t i r i c and Comic Theory in R e l a t i o n to Fielding."

MLQ_, XVI I I (1957) , 225-237.
Ehrenpreis, Irvin. F i e l d i n g ; Tom J o n e s . London, 1964.

F i e l d i n g , Henry. The Complete Works o f Henry F i e l d i n g , E s q . , e d . W.

E. Henley and o t h e r s . 16 v o l s . , London, 1902.

. The Works of Henry F i e l d i n g . New Y o r k , 1899.

Ford, B o r i s , ed. From Dryden to Johnson. (Volume 4 of the P e l i c a n

Guide to E n g l i s h L i t e r a t u r e ) . Penguin Books, 1957-

George, M. Dorothy. England in T r a n s i t i o n . Penguin Books, 1931.

Goggin, L. P. "Development o f Techniques in F i e l d i n g ' s C o m e d i e s . "

PMLA, LXVII (1952), 769-781.

. " F i e l d i n g ' s The Masquerade." PQ_, XXXVI (1957), 475-487.

Hutchens, E l e a n o r N. Irony in Tom J o n e s . University of Alabama P r e s s ,
1965.
I r v i n g , W i l l i a m Henry. John Gay; F a v o u r i t e of the Wits New York,1962.

Irwin, W i l l i a m Robert. The Making o f Jonathan W i l d . Columbia University

P r e s s , 19^1.

. " S a t i r e and Comedy in the Works o f Henry F i e l d i n g . "

ELH, XI I (1946), 168-188.

Johnson, M a u r i c e . F i e l d i n g ' s A r t of F i c t i o n . P h i l a d e l p h i a , 1961.

J o n e s , B. M. Henry F i e l d i n g . N o v e l i s t and M a g i s t r a t e . London, 1933.

L o f t i s , J o h n . Comedy and S o c i e t y from Congreve to F i e l d i n g .
S t a n f o r d U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1959.

Mack, Maynard. "The Muse of Satire." Y a l e Review, XL I (1950, 88-90.

M i d d l e l t o n Murry, J o h n . " I n Defense o f F i e l d i n g , " Unprofess ional

Essays. London, 1956. 9-52.

M i l l e r , Henry K. Essays on F i e l d i n g ' s M i s c e l l a n i e s . Princeton

U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1961.

N i c h o l s , C. W. "Fielding's S a t i r e on P a n t o m i n e . " PMLA, XLVI (193 0,

1107-12.

. " S o c i a l S a t i r e in F i e l d i n g ' s Pasqu i n and The Historical

Register." PQ, I I I (1924), 309-317.

Paulson, Ronald, ed. F i e l d i n g , A C o l l e c t i o n of C r i t i c a l Essays.

P r e n t i c e - H a l l , I n c . , 1962.

Pinkus, P h i l i p . " S a t i r e and S t . G e o r g e . " Queen's Quarterly,

LXX (1963), 30-49.
Pope, A l e x a n d e r . Twickenham e d i t i o n . The Poems of A l e x a n d e r Pope,
ed. John B u t t . London, 1939-

. E p i s t l e s to Several Persons (Moral Essays) , e d . F. W. Bateson.

London, 1951.

Robertson, O l i v i a . " F i e l d i n g as S a t i r i s t . " Contemporary Review,

No. 1034 (1952), 120-124.

S a c k s , Sheldon. F i c t i o n and the Shape o f B e l i e f . B e r k e l e y and

Los A n g e l e s , 1964.
S h e r b u r n , George. "Fielding's Social Outlook." PO., XXXV (1956), 1-23.

S w i f t , Jonathan. The P r o s e Works o f Jonathan S w i f t , e d . Temple Scott.

London, 1905.

Thornbury, E. M. Henry F i e l d i n g ' s Theory o f the Comic P r o s e E p i c .

U n i v e r s i t y o f W i s c o n s i n S t u d i e s in Language and L i t e r a t u r e , No.30;
Madison, 1931.

Watt, Ian. " F i e l d i n g and the E p i c Theory of the N o v e l , " in

The R i s e o f the N o v e l ; S t u d i e s in Defoe, R i c h a r d s o n and
Fielding. U n i v e r s i t y o f C a l i f o r n i a P r e s s , 1957.

W e l l s , J . E. " F i e l d i n g ' s P o l i t i c a l Purpose in Jonathan W i l d . "

PMLA, XXVI I I (1913), 1-55.

Willey, Basil. The E i g h t e e n t h Century Background. B o s t o n , 1940.

W r i g h t , Andrew. Henry F i e l d i n g . Mask and F e a s t . London, 1965.