Research on Humanities and Social Sciences www.iiste.

org
ISSN (Paper)2224-5766 ISSN (Online)2225-0484 (Online)
Vol.4, No.28, 2014

Fielding’s Controversial Moralism versus Tom Jones’s Catharsis

Md. Nazmul Huda
Assistant Professor, Dept. of English Language and Literature, International Islamic University Chittangog.
Abstract
Exhausted and fed up with hypocrisy along with material jealousy-which seems to be the root cause of the
conflict between individuals, sects, races, colours and religions- humanity requires some blazing instances of
integrity and magnanimity of heart for consolation. Tom Jones is such a novel where the hero’s self-sacrifice for
the sake of the emancipation of the anguished and aggrieved mankind has been focused evidently. This article
has attempted a psycho-analysis of Tom Jones’s personality with a view to imparting a motivating sway upon
readers as well as critics making a careful study of Tom Jones to reduce and alleviate affliction of the concerned
human beings to a large extent for a serene society of reciprocal understanding and deference. It also attempts to
present Tom Jones, the hero of Henry Fielding’s novel, Tom Jones, as a man having the greatness of heart in
spite of tremendous criticism regarding the novelist’s incessant reluctance of his hero’s frequent moral
progresses downhill. It observes and explores a hero's physical and psychological evolution and mellowness to a
quite altered man from what he was during his parentless, immature and childhood lapses against conventional
Christian ethical codes. In this article, Tom stands out from a natural human being to a schooled and learned one
through different ordeals. This article also counts Tom's goodness of heart which is considered as the supreme
human virtue and which- while existing in a man's heart- gradually and unquestionably undertakes the
purification process. An attempt has also been made to highlight the opposite trait, hypocrisy that mars a human
character. By comparison and contrast of Tom's portrayal with others, Fielding's philosophy of 'goodness of
heart' is brought to light.
Key Words: Goodness of heart, ethical laxity, catharsis, hypocrisy, awareness and penitence.

1. Introduction:
Tom Jones, the hero, in Henry Fielding's novel, Tom Jones, is intrinsically good-hearted in quest of
judiciousness, which Tom eventually achieves in his matrimony with Sophia. His high-spirited temperament
now matures into a sensible perspicacity of virtue. The narrative of a foundling upon whom nature has bestowed
physical splendor and exultant vivacity is designated to focus on Fielding's philosophy, 'goodness of heart'. But
the juvenile Tom does not always act equitably, so he ostensibly appears to be a dissolute hero and is pungently
criticized thereby. Tormented and preoccupied with the verisimilitude of having no parents, he acts on impulse,
sometimes well, sometimes ill and he lacks a particular sorts of responsibility. It was a case of his seeing and
approving the higher and following the lower impulses. His sexual experiences are of course ethically
contemptible. Although Tom sins a couple of times in the heat of his blood, he personally does not seem to take
any initiative whatsoever. In his sexual escapades with Molly Seagrim, Mrs. Waters and the Lady Bellaston,
these women remains the seducers and Tom the seduced. Besides, though Tom is a rascal, Fielding seems to
find Tom’s jovial bestiality much more preferable to other graver sins like malevolence, brutality, heartlessness
and hypocrisy committed by Mr. Allworthy, Squire Western, Squre, Thaucum, Master Blifil, Lady Bellaston
and others. In spite of Tom’s confession to be guilty with women, he professes that he has not injured or caused
misery to any as a consequence. Tom, thus, is not an anti-hero. If only Tom had discretion, he would not have
engrossed himself in all his lapses. Squire Allworthy is convinced that much generosity, goodness and honour
consist in Tom and if only he adjoined foresight and religiosity to these, he would be released of criticism. The
novel is in part, an account of “how Tom learns to add prudence,” which to Allworthy perhaps signifies practical
religion. Fielding leads us to Tom’s bigheartedness and compassion towards the dissolute Anderson family and
to Tom’s active and warm-spirited services on behalf of Nightingale and Nancy and to Tom’s rejection of Mrs.
Arabella Hunts’ offer of a comfortable match. He tells Mrs. Hunt that it would be reprehensible and dishonorable
to accept her proposal as he adores someone else, while admitting at the same time that he has hardly any hope
of ever winning Sophia. His presentation of Tom is that of an ordinary social human being who frequently tends
to 'the first sin of disobedience' committed by Adam who was later condoned by ever-merciful God himself.

2. Objectives:
Despite tremendous criticism of ethical laxity against Tom, the hero, on the part of some renowned
critics, in this study, the author feels interested to highlight and recommend Tom Jones's goodness of heart,
which is one of the most principal functions of the study of literature itself. It is also the rationale of the article to
identify the true nature of hypocrisy in the characters round the hero, Tom whose character, by comparison and
contrast, stands out as not having such human frailty like hypocrisy.

169
Research on Humanities and Social Sciences www.iiste.org
ISSN (Paper)2224-5766 ISSN (Online)2225-0484 (Online)
Vol.4, No.28, 2014

This study also aims at enhancing literary thinking power of the learners. At the tertiary level, while students are
asked in interviews whether they like Tom Jones as the hero of Fielding's masterpiece or what heroic qualities
Tom have, often the responses are embarrassing; the respondents simply blush possibly at the remembrances of
Tom's moral deviation with Molly Segream, Mrs. Waters and Lady Bellaston. The fresh learners do not seem to
look at Tom's goodness of heart, by thinking of his unharming nature, philanthropic mind, soft corners towards
men and women in difficulties, unadulterated commiseration towards the poor man burdened with a big family
or that forced lady whose honour is at stake, or that girl whose virginity has been marred by the deceiving man
who has now no inclination to marry her. I conceive the learners as well as the ordinary readers will get a scope
that in no vulgar action Tom took a hearty initiative and after his psychological maturity and sharp realization he
does not respond to the advances made by Mrs. Fitzparick and Mrs. Arabella Hunt. Therefore this writing will
focus Tom's return from the sin to which the mankind tend at almost invincible instigation perpetrated by Satan
who is responsible for their Father's first sin of disobedience. So one of the objectives is to clarify that besides
Tom's being the hero, he is like a natural human being living in our society, who are every now and then
committing sins, getting repentant and seeking forgiveness of compassionate God.

3. Methodology:
This article is principally founded on documents collected from various secondary sources like books of
criticism, journals and intellectual articles and on long critical experience of teaching literature. Sometimes,
different important pieces of imformation have also been accumulated from related websites.

4. Literature Rview:
4.1. Arthur Murphy’s Mixed Estimates:
Critics and other readers have expressed the most diverse opinions regarding Fielding’s major works.
Some have bestowed the highest praise upon them, on the other hand, others have censured them as menace to
public morals. Fielding was unlucky that he had Arthur Murphy as his first biographer. This young Irishman was
a devotee of Fielding, whom he regarded as his master. Subsequent to Fielding's demise, he shifted his fondness
to Dr. Johnson, whom “he sought to please by his flattery.”(Cross, 1918, p.127) Murphy’s estimates of Fielding
were not comprehensive since he omitted a lot of works including Fielding’s autobiography, A Voyage to
Lisbon. Thus distorted, Fielding's works passed on to next generation. Later on, “for more than a century,
editors and publishers followed, either directly or indirectly, the selection made by Murphy.” (Cross, 1918, p.
125-127) Arthur Murphy comments that Fielding’s “novels took the reader into low life among people guilty of
crime and all sorts of moral offences. Sex instinct was often perverted or subject to no control.” (Cross, 1918,
p.135). Afterwards, Murphy turned Fielding’s integrity into deficiency. Nor did he hesitate at all in making
contradictory remarks in different portions of his writings. Murphy said “though learned, Fielding's mind was
never properly disciplined by severe study.” (Cross, 1918, p.139) This is a comment about a man whose literary
works give testimony to that wide reading which later on loomed immense. More irresponsible observations
resulted from Murphy, as he termed Henry Fielding as a careless writer. He added “There were times when
Fielding was forced to let his work go before it completely satisfied him.” (Cross, 1918, p.144) Fielding was
sworn in as a Justice of the peace for Westminster on October 26, 1748, and "Tom Jones" was first published on
the twenty-eighth of the following February. Hence the novel, according to Murphy, was written and given to the
press within four months at the longest. However, if Murphy were careful about the facts, he might have been
informed that two or three years were spent in writing. Nonetheless, Murphy also commented favourably about
Henry Fielding. He writes “neither in his life nor in his works did he ever betray the interests of virtue and
religion.” (Murphy, 1806, p. 83) He concludes his praise by saying "our author was unhappy, but not vicious in
his nature.” (Murphy, 1806, p. 84 )
4.2. The Harsh Comments Made by Dr. Johnson and His Contemporaries:
In a bitter criticism towards Tom Jones, Dr. Johnson opines to Hannah More, one of his admirers, that
“I am shocked to hear you quote from so vicious a book. I am sorry to hear you have read it: a confession which
no modest lady should ever make. I scarcely know a more corrupt work.” (Bosswell, 1836, p. 293) Again, Sir
John Hawkins, one of Johnson’s biographers, treats Tom Jones as “seemingly intended to sap the foundation of
the morality” (Hawkins, 1914, p. 214). Samuel Richardson (Barbau1d, 1804, p. 275) speaks out in the same
strain. He thinks “Tom Jones is a dissolute book. Its turn is over…. It is true that France had virtue enough to
refuse a license for such a profligate performance.” After Richardson's decease, Dr. Johnson took the charge of
criticism on his friend’s part. He always felt great obligation to Richardson, who bailed him out of jail in the
days of his hardship. Johnson, a man of sound heart, could never forget these enormous services. As such,
Johnson on every chance acted as Richardson's representative. (Cross,1918, p.157-158) Wilbur L. Cross says

170
Research on Humanities and Social Sciences www.iiste.org
ISSN (Paper)2224-5766 ISSN (Online)2225-0484 (Online)
Vol.4, No.28, 2014

about Dr. Johnson: “I surmise that his first-hand knowledge of Fielding was very slight. He said himself that he
had never read "Joseph Andrews"; nor is there any evidence that he ever read "Tom Jones." He several times told
his friends that he read "Amelia" through "without stopping." If this be so, it is the only book that ever he read
through. (Cross, 1918, p,158) As a result, in the interest of Richardson, Johnson called Fielding "a blockhead"
and "a barren rascal," meaning thereby that Fielding's novels had no substance, that they were superficial
pictures of life, only "the shell" without "the kernel," when brought into comparison with
Richardson's.(Bosswell, 1832, p. 292) There was as great a difference between the two writers, He every now
and then declared that the difference between them was as great , "as between a man who knew how a watch was
made, and a man who could tell the hour by looking on the dial-plate. Fielding’s novels were the watches which
only the sharp-eyed were able to read, while Richardson's were the dials by which one might see at a glance
where the sun stood in the heavens.(Cross, 1918, p.158) Sir John Hawkins, a member of Johnson's club, who
was related with Johnson in the early days on "The Gentleman's Magazine", sharply reacts against Fielding’s
‘goodness of heart’: “He was the inventor of that cant-phrase, goodness of heart, which is every day used as a
substitute for probity, and means little more than the virtue of a horse or a dog ; in short, he has done more
towards corrupting the rising generation than any writer we know of."(Hawkins, 1787, p. 214-215) Dr. John
Aikin, Barbauld’s brother, wrote about Henry Fielding: “there is no doubt that his [Fielding's] course of early
licentiousness and extravagance had laid an unhappy foundation for too much knowledge of this kind. (Cross,
1918, p.197) The defamers, however, basically depended upon Murphy whose statements they picked up out of
their context and then gave them a meaning which the author never intended. Again, William Mudford harshly
comments about Fielding: “no man of genius, perhaps ever sunk deeper in vice and folly than Fielding." ( Cross,
1918, p.202) He also criticizes Fielding’s hero, Tom Jones, who “was a detestable young man prostituting
himself to "the superannuated desires of Lady Bellaston." ( Cross, 1918, p.202)
4.3. Fame Accorded by Contemporary and Later Critics to Henry Fielding and His Masterpiece, Tom
Jones:
Sir Joshua Reynolds, a member of Johnson's own club, regarded "Tom Jones" as "a work of the highest
merit". (Zimmern, 1887, pp. 222-223 ) he adds "that the moral tendency of Fielding's writings, though it does not
encourage a strained and rarely possible virtue, is ever favourable to honour and honesty, and cherishes the
benevolent and generous affections. He who is as good as Fielding would make him, is an amiable member of
society.” (Hill, 1887, p. 49) Six years after the storm of criticism against Henry Fielding, Murphy’s friend, John
Nichols, describes Henry Fielding as “an author of great eminence”.(Cross, 1918, p. 204) Coleridge accepts him
as “moral as well as literary” (Coleridge, 1836, p. 310) and Byron names Fielding “the prose Homer of human
nature.(Moore, 1832, p. 55). The moral of “Tom Jones” Hazlitt conceived was assailed “without much reason”
William Hazlitt profusely appreciated Fielding . He thinks that he (Fielding) has congregated “a greater varieties
of common life, marked with more distinct peculiarities, and without an atom of caricature than any other novel
writer whatever. The extreme subtlety of observation on the springs of human conduct in ordinary characters, is
only equaled by the ingenuity of contrivance in bringing those springs into play, in such a manner as to lay open
their smallest irregularity. (Cross,1918, p. 205) Charles Lamb, who was not wholly at ease in the “low life”
pictured by Fielding, felt that the moral eye might rest content on his characters: “One cordial honest laugh of a
Tom Jones absolutely clears the atmosphere that was reeking with the black putrefying breathings of a hypocrite
Blifil.” (Lucas, 1903, p. 83) In the most favourable comment Sir Walter Scott said, “Fielding was the first to
transform loose adventures into a new and wonderful art. For this reason he called Him the Father of the English
Novel.” (Cross,1914, p.208)
The plausible analytical deficiencies of the aforesaid critiquing lie in the fact that they appear to have
only focused light upon the immature, boyish nature of Tom Jone’s Character without considering his noble
quality, the goodness of heart and philanthropic spirit to those surrounding him and his final repentance and
reluctance to the immoral advances made by Mrs. Fitzpatrick and Mrs. Arabella Hunts. The author of this article
conceives that if a person does not take any initiative in mischievous activities, does not have any intension to
harm anybody, rather becomes a victim to socio-economic unfavourable situations; and moreover if he extends
his helping hands to those who are in difficulty, helplessness even at the cost of his life, his peculiarities and
eccentricities may be condoned. Tom Jones is such a hero and this is how the author wants to prove that Tom
Jones is a masterpiece of highly ethical standard.

5. Justifications:
Critiquing Henry Fielding and his hero, Tom Jones, a number of articles have been written and
numerous scholarly studies have been made against the novelist's peculiar creation and his hero's serious moral
degradation, but nowhere, it seems to me, the causes of Tom's depravity, his frustrating suffering, his awareness

171
Research on Humanities and Social Sciences www.iiste.org
ISSN (Paper)2224-5766 ISSN (Online)2225-0484 (Online)
Vol.4, No.28, 2014

of sins and consequent contrition have been elaborately and minutely clarified. And hardly in any research, the
magnanimity of Tom's heart has been affectionately portrayed. In this article, the author attempts to remain
unbiased in depicting true character of Tom Jones and identifying really good men in our society.

6. Fielding’s Objective in Writing Tom Jones:

In the preface to Tom Jones, Fielding says that the reader will find in the whole course of it “nothing
prejudicial to the cause of religion and virtue, nothing inconsistent with the strictest rules of decency, nor which
can offend even the chastest eye in the perusal.” He recapitulates his purpose in writing this novel by saying
“that to recommend goodness and innocence hath been my sincere endeavour in this history.” ( Rhys, 1908, p.)
Henry Fielding’s purpose of writing this novel is to uphold generosity of human heart without hurting the sense
of morality or religion. In this connection, David Daiches asserts that “the kind of morality he was preaching-
goodness of heart rather than technical virtue, with sins of the flesh regarded much more lightly than sins against
generosity of feeling- might be superficially shocking to at least some of his readers.” He also opines that “his
book was both chaste and moral.” (Daiches, 1960, p.719) The novelist, through this work of art, also wants to
serve an artistic purpose which is to bring “his hero into a series of situations where his imprudence and lack of
discretion give power to his enemies and seem to be about to destroy him” in order to reform his hero. (Daiches,
1960, p.719) Therefore, Henry Fielding’s purpose seems to keep readers as well as young learners aware so that
they may not suffer from the want of prudence. Fielding appears to believe that virtue may be distorted by errors
of judgment in different stages of life. Neilson rightly remarks about Fielding’s purpose: “Fielding … had
pronounced ethical convictions, and were at pains to justify … (his) writings upon moral grounds.” (Eliot, 1917,
p. xii)

7. Tom’s Aberrant, Unaided Nativity Arousing Sympathy:

Tom Jones is obviously not responsible for his illegal birth which is taken unfavourably in the
conventional Christian society. Deborah Wilkins does not consider the foundling her fellow creature; even she
gives vent to her extreme odium towards the innocent infant:
“it goes against me to touch these misbegotten wretches, whom I don't look upon as my fellow-
creatures. Faugh ! how it stinks ! It doth not smell like a Christian.” (Fielding, 1907, book iii, Chapter i,
p. 8)
Even what is more inhuman is Debora’s nonchalance concerning the security of the newly born baby:
“If I might be so bold to give my advice, I would have it put in a basket, and sent out and laid at the
church warden's door. It is a good night, only a little rainy and windy; and if it was well wrapt up, and
put in a warm basket, it is two to one but it lives till it is found in the morning. But if it should not, we
have discharged our duty, in taking proper care of it; and it is, perhaps, better for such creatures to die in
a state of innocence, than to grow up and imitate their mothers; for nothing better can be expected of
them." (Fielding, 1907, Book iii, Chapter i, p. 8)
Although he was a bastard, he is a human being who should be brought up like other children in the existing
society. Deborah Wilkins expresses her intense aversion to him and recommends Allworthy to put the foundling
at the church door. Now the readers’ sympathy naturally goes with Tom, regarding who will take up his social
responsibility concerning where he will be given shelter for survival. Readers are also concerned as to who may
give him sustenance. Of course, Ethics does not allow adulterous relationship between a man and a woman
(Miss. Bridget and Mr. Summer) who were liable for Tom’s birth, but Tom during his childhood psychologically
acutely suffers from his having no parents- and thereby no social identity as well as dignified status. Moreover
Blifil, every now and then, maliciously calls him a bastard. Tom feels ashamed and embarrassed. Hence Tom
Jones is the victim of such environment which is evil enough for him to be unruly and dare-devil.

8. Tom Jones’s Childhood Flaws/ Indiscretion due to Unfavourable Circumstances:

Introducing Tom, in the Third Book, Fielding informs readers that “it was the universal opinion of Mr.
Allworthy’s family that he was certainly born to be hanged.” (Fielding, 1907, p.75) He had been already
convicted of three robberies, namely, robbing an orchard, stealing a duck and picking Mr. Blifil’s pocket.
Fielding declares that “bad though he is, Tom Jones must serve for the hero of his History”. (Fielding, 1907,
p.75) Fielding explains that the aforementioned three acts were committed not because Tom was vicious, but
because of the instigation of Black George gaining from them. It was for this ‘friendship’ and in order to shield
Black George from dismissal in the partridge case, that Tom suffered beating which was nothing short of torture.
He did persist in an untruth, but it was for a friend and a poor game-keeper who could be dismissed. When the

172
Research on Humanities and Social Sciences www.iiste.org
ISSN (Paper)2224-5766 ISSN (Online)2225-0484 (Online)
Vol.4, No.28, 2014

truth was out, he begged Allworthy ‘to have compassion on the poor fellow’s family’. Even his untruth resulted
from kindness. Allworthy could not punish Tom.

9. Feat of Kindheartedness:
One day, Tom Jones and Black George, the gamekeeper, went on shooting. They saw some partridges
near the border of the manor of Squire Western. Both of them entered the manor and both discharged their guns
almost at the same instant and one of the partridges was shot down. The owner went straight to Squire Allworthy
and reported the matter, stressing that some other person was in his company, as two guns had been discharged
almost at the same instant. Tom was called before Allworthy. He confessed his fault but persisted in asserting
that he was alone, as he wanted to save his friend from ruin. Next morning Thwackum, the tutor, asked Tom the
same question. Receiving the same answer he gave him a severe whipping. Tom bore the punishment but did not
betray his friend. Squire Allworthy now suspecting that the gentleman had been mistaken felt sorry and gave
Tom a little horse to make amends. Afterwards, in a quarrel, as Blifil called Tom a beggarly bastard, Tom felt
mortified and gave him a bloody nose. Master Blifil with the blood running from his nose, went to Squire
Allworthy. He complained against Tom Jones and said that Tom was a great liar, as Tom had refused to admit
that George was in his company when actually he was accompanied by George, the game-keeper. Tom admitted
that he had told a lie which he scorned as much as anyone else. He said that he had done so as he had promised
the poor fellow to safeguard him from any potential misfortune. Finally he submissively recommends for
George:
“Do, pray, sir, let me be punished; take my little horse away again, but pray, sir, forgive poor
George.”(Rhys, 1908, Book. iii, Chapter. iv, p. 80)
Mr. Allworthy was deeply impressed by Tom’s sincerity and straightforwardness. Tom Jones, unlike most of the
hypocritical inmates of our society, has a readiness of heart to save the poor even at the cost of his own
catastrophe.

10. Philanthropy in Restoring Black George into Service:

Because Mr. Allworthy dismissed George from his service, George and his family passed miserable
days. Tom could not see these poor wretches naked and starving. He went to a neighbouring fair and sold the
horse earlier presented to him by Mr. Allworthy and gave all the money to the gamekeeper. On his return
Thwackum asked him what he had done with the money for which the horse was sold, but Tom firmly refused to
tell him. Thwackum was about to punish him when Mr. Allworthy appeared there and took Tom to his room. Mr.
Allworthy asked the same question. Tom explained everything fully and frankly and said :
“You yourself, sir, I am convinced in my case, would have done the same for none ever so sensibly felt
the misfortunes of others.” .(Rhys, 1908, Book. iii, Chapter. viii, p. 91)
With tears running down his cheeks, he added:
“It was to save them from absolute destruction that I parted with your dear present notwithstanding all
the value I had for it. I sold the horse for them and they have every farthing of the money.” .(Rhys,
1908, Book. iii, Chapter. viii, p. 91)

Mr. Allworthy stood silent, but his eyes were filled with tears at the generosity of the lad. Mr. Allworthy decided
to take back George in his service. But Master Blifil poisoned his ears saying that the game-keeper had killed
several hares belonging to Mr. Western, the nearby Squire. Mr. Allworthy was enraged and resolved not to
employ George further. Tom now got determined to try another method of preserving the poor gamekeeper from
ruin. Here, Blifil’s hypocrisy categorically shows of Tom’s altruism towards afflicted humanity. In fact, there is
no scarcity of men in our society, who, like Blifil, are ever in quest of causing others’ ills, by misleading them
into complexity.

11. Tom’s Hazardous Endeavour to Get Back Sophia’s Bird:

Once, Tom gifted Sophia with a little bird she kept with her always as a pet. Master Blifil let the bird fly
away from confinement, and Sophia greatly resented this action. The bird ‘perched on a bough at some distance’
on a tree. On hearing this, Tom ‘applied himself to climbing the tree to which the bird escaped’. Just when he got
hold of the bird, the branch on which the bird took shelter and ‘that hung over a canal broke and the poor lad
plumped over head and ears into the water’. This incident had, like many others, became the occasion of a debate
between Thwackum and Square. Squire Western had put an end to this debate by pointing out that Tom Jones
was a generous-spirited lad who had risked breaking his neck in order to please his daughter Sophia. Later on,

173
Research on Humanities and Social Sciences www.iiste.org
ISSN (Paper)2224-5766 ISSN (Online)2225-0484 (Online)
Vol.4, No.28, 2014

the novelist makes a contrast between the sentiments of Tom and Blifil through Sophia’s realization, focusing
Tom’s self-sacrifice:
“To say the truth, Sophia, when very young, discerned that Tom, though an idle, thoughtless,
rattling rascal, was nobody's enemy but his own; and that Master Blifil, though a prudent,
discreet, sober young gentleman, was at the same time strongly attached to the interest only of
one single person” .(Rhys, 1908, Book. iii, Chapter. v, p. 108)

12. A Humanitarian Attempt to Rehabilitate Black George:

Since Mr. Allworthy fired George from his job, the latter with his wife and several children passed
wretched days. Tom now resolved to undertook to preserve the poor gamekeeper from ruin. He had grown very
intimate with Mr. Western. So he determined to help Black George in getting employment in Mr. Western’s
family as a gamekeeper. The anxiety and devotion Tom nurtures for the poor, sacked gamekeeper stands
transparent in the novelists delineation:
“Tom, one afternoon, finding Sophia alone, began, after a short apology, with a very serious
face, to acquaint her that he had a favour to ask of her which he hoped her goodness would
comply with.” (Rhys, 1908, Book. iii, Chapter. v, p. 109)
Sophia was confused and perplexed as to what might be the possible ‘favour’. As Tom told her he needs her help
to save Black George and his large family from ruin, immediately releasing her of the anxiety, she reacted
favourably with the assurance of all types of possible help with a smile full of sweetness:
“Is this the mighty favour you asked with so much gravity? I will do it with all my heart.”
(Rhys, 1908, Book. iii, Chapter. v, p. 110)
More articulately Tom implored her to recommend her father for Black Geoge’s employment as a gamekeeper
at her father’s service. The next morning Black George got the ‘deputation’. This is obviously working for
humanity on earth where tentatively everybody is hankering after his own interest.

13. Tom’s Hand Broken for Saving Sophia’s Life:

Tom’s mind always used to abound in manliness and bravery; he rushed to extend his helping hand to
the endangered and distressed people. One day, in the course of a ride, Sophia’s horse suddenly turned restless
and unruly, and began to leap and jump in such a manner that she would have fallen to the ground and been
killed or badly hurt, had not Tom Jones, who was at a little distance from her, seen this and immediately rushed
to her assistance. Leaping from his own horse, Tom caught hold of the bridle of ‘Sophia’s horse. The unruly
beast reared himself on his hind legs and threw Sophia from his back. Tom caught Sophia in his arms and thus
saved her life, thereby breaking his arm. Thwackum said it was a punishment, which made Squire Western
angry; He felt greatly indebted to Tom for having saved his daughtr’s life. Although Tom was seriously injured,
he was tremendously jubilant to confront such mishap:
“if it preserved Miss Western, I shall always consider it the happiest accident of my life.”
(Rhys, 1908, Book. v, Chapter. ii, p. 151)
Some readers may doubt about Tom’s sincerity. They may say that Tom wanted to get the hand of
Sophia, and as such he could easily make such sacrifice. But a little judiciousness may make it clear that Tom
had hardly any such possibility due to his social stigma of being a bastard. Even when he fell in love with
Sophia, he could not think of alliance for fear that that may cause ruin to her. In his last letter before leaving the
country, he wrote:
“O, my Sophia, it is hard to leave you; it is harder still to desire you to forget me; yet the
sincerest love obliges me to both” (Rhys, 1908, Book. vi, Chapter. xii, p. 233)
Therefore, risking his own life, Tom went forward to catch the bird and thereby to condole with crying Sophia
without thinking to serve any personal interest.

14. Generosity towards the Old Man of the Hill:

Tom’s treatment of Anderson, the old man of the hill, is quite symbolic of the generosity of heart most
of the people of our society desperately lack. He demonstrates clemency rather than justice towards the
highwayman attempting to rob him. When he realises that the man’s tale of a famished wife and children is
factual, he instantly donates him all the funds he has. Afterwards, not knowing that Mr. Anderson, Mrs. Miller’s
unfortunate cousin, is the same person, he urges Mrs. Miller to take the entire amount of fifty pounds Lady
Bellaston has just given him and to spend it for the family. When Anderson comes to the house, he recognizes
Tom as the man he had tried to rob. Tom keeps silent on that aspect of their earlier meeting, and puts aside
Anderson’s assertion of thankfulness for the fresh contribution:

174
Research on Humanities and Social Sciences www.iiste.org
ISSN (Paper)2224-5766 ISSN (Online)2225-0484 (Online)
Vol.4, No.28, 2014

If there are men who cannot feel the delight of giving happiness to others, I sincerely pity
them, as they are incapable of tasting what is, in my opinion, a greater honour, a higher
interest, and a sweeter pleasure than the ambitious, the avaricious, or the voluptuous man can
ever obtain. (Roscoe, 1841 Book xiii, chapter x, P.198)
Thus, Henry Fielding’s hero remains steadfast in the mind of suffering mankind from all walks of life. It is as if
he were Hazi Muhammad Mohsin1 in the Brtish-Indian Subcontinent.

15. Nancy Miller Rescued from Destruction:

Unhesitatingly and spontaneously Tom Jones is seen serving the distressed humanity. He protected
Nancy Miller from being dishonoured by Mr. Nightingale by whom the trusting, but foolish girl became
pregnant as a result of being seduced under a promise of marriage. Tom, making a contrast between his
impropriety and that of Nightingale, gently attempts to motivate Nightingale:
“Lookee, Mr. Nightingale, I am no canting hypocrite, nor do I pretend to the gift of chastity
more than my neighbours. I have been guilty with women, I own it; but I am not conscious that
I have ever injured any; Nor would I, to procure pleasure to myself, be knowingly the cause of
misery to any human being.” (Roscoe, 1841 Book xiv, chapter iv, P.206)
As Nightingale, after finding that his father demands his marriage to an heiress, informs Nancy that he must
desert her, Tom opposes the disgraceful scheme:
“Can you, with honour, be guilty of having, under false pretences, deceived a young woman
and her family, and of having by these means treacherously robbed her of her innocence?”
(Roscoe, 1841 Book, xiv , chapter, vii , P. 210)
Nightingale rejoins that the world will think he is dishonouring himself if he gets married to an unchaste woman.
Tom accuses Nightingale of Nancy’s being foolishly seduced. He reminds Nightingale that he solemnly
promised to marry her. At last Tom forced Nightingale to marry her and thus saved her from ruin. Tom always
remained ready for people in nuisance.

16. Fielding’s Philosophy of Hypocrisy Showing off Tom’s Integrity:

Limitations of almost all the characters are contrasted to Tom’s generosity and goodness of heart.
Allworthy’s ignorant view of human nature, Bridget’s feigning virtue, Captain Blifil’s betrayal of his benefactor
brother, Blifil’s treachery, Molly’s frailty, the inconstancy of Nightingale and Mrs. Fitzpatrick, and Lady
Bellaston’s deliberate profligacy obviously show off Tom’s nobility and goodness of heart. Particularly, Blifil is
portrayed as a foil to Tom Jones. People believe that Tom is a trouble-maker and that Blifil is a discreet and
pious person. But actually Tom is moved by generous impulses, while Blifil is hypocritical. Charles Lamb’s
comment incorporated by Tackeray releases Tom, by indicting Blifil and Lady Bellaston:
A single hearty laugh from him (Tom) “clears the air”—but then it is in a certain state of the
atmosphere. It might clear the air when such personages as Blifil or Lady Bellaston poison
it.(Thackeray, 2007, p. 85)

However, Fielding seems to favour Tom’s goodness and at the same time censures his imprudence for engaging
in poaching. He also shows that Tom’s treatment of Black George deserves commendation. Fielding believes
that true religion is dynamic and practical, and good actions are more important than a knowledge of good
principles. Presented as pompous and hypocritical, Two tutors- Thwackum and Square are also contrasted to
Tom. Both have knowledge of what is good but lack the ability to carry it out in daily life.

17. Unfavourable Circumstances Liable for Tom’s Digression:

Some critics mentioned earlier have commented harshly on this young man; yet some pretexts may
reasonably be recommended in his defense. Middleton Murray says:
‘It is often forgotten by those who cannot help thinking Tom Jones disreputable that he never lays siege
to a woman; it is always the woman who beleaguers him. Tom’s trouble is that he cannot find heart to
repulse them.” (Arya, 1999, p.47)
Tom Jones’s early childhood milieu was scarcely propitious for his psychological maturity. During his
adolescence, he was constantly encompassed by the people who, with very few exceptions, loathed him,
exaggerated his infirmities, and predicted that ‘he was certainly born to be hanged’. Nobody really
commiserated with him ; nobody cared to understand him, or to give him the thoughtful motivation which an
wild lad badly required. Tom found Allworthy benevolent and generous, but at the same time the latter remained
rigid and inaccessible as well; Thwackum treated him brutally ; Square was ‘active in injustice towards him’ ;

175
Research on Humanities and Social Sciences www.iiste.org
ISSN (Paper)2224-5766 ISSN (Online)2225-0484 (Online)
Vol.4, No.28, 2014

Mrs. Blifil at first seemed to hate him; young Blifil hardly let pass a chance of mortifying him . The friendless,
forlorn boy was thus destined to lodge with the unenlightened and unpolished associates, the thieving game-
keeper, Black George, and the boisterous, hard drinking sportsman, Squire Western, who alone seemed to
appreciate him. It is to his credit that, with such an upbringing, his morals and conducts were not worse than in
fact they were. Everything goes wrong for him- from Book iv, Chapter iii (the incident of Sophia’s escaped
bird), to Book xiii, Chapter iii, when he offers the fifty pounds he has received from Lady Bellaston to Mrs.
Miller for her starving cousin, he has a long bad period. And Jones himself is undergoing transformation. This
gradual modification really stands transparent when Mrs. Miller comes on the scene. Her cousin happens to be
married to the highwayman whom Jones has forgiven and helped in Book xii, Chapter xiv, and this munificence,
criticized so sturdily by Partridge, launches a series of events which continues now with Mrs. Miller’s
unwavering support of Jones. But at the same time, his exertions grow more and more like those of a fly in a
cobweb. Instead of being the end of Jones, it is the beginning of his recovery. Mrs. Miller’s daughter Nancy,
Nightingale, and the two senior Nightingales form a smaller world within a world, in which, later, Jones moves
like an angel of justice, and this is the evidence that after Upton he has been reformed; he is worthy of Sophia at
last. His living as a ‘kept man’ with Lady Bellaston, which has offended more people than has the short-sharp
affairs with Mrs. Waters, has much more justification that he and Partridge would otherwise have starved.
Unfortunately, at the moment, he was in dire need for money; indeed, he had literally not a shilling in the world.
Hence the temptation to accept her ladyship’s gift of £ 50 was almost irresistible.
On this episode, Scott makes a singularly inapt comment. He writes:

The character of Jones, otherwise a model of generosity, openness, manly spirit mingled with
thoughtless dissipation, is … unnecessarily degraded by the nature of his intercourse with Lady
Bellaston and this is one of the circumstances which incline us to believe that Fielding’s ideas
of what was gentlemanlike and honourable had sustained some depreciation. (Williams, 1968,
p.38)

But in the first place, there is no ground for stating that Tom’s degradation was unnecessary. The novelist’s
problem was to inspire a wild young man, only too prone to yield to temptation, particularly when it came to him
in a woman’s shape, with so profound a distaste for illicit amours, that the reality and permanence of his
reformation could be depended on. As a matter of fact, Henry Fielding seems to treat such activities as Tom’s
degenerations from the moral path. Moreover, he did not condone those deviations, or minimize their
heinousness, or let them pass without adequate punishment. On the contrary, we find that for every delinquency
of which Tom was guilty, he was in some way made to suffer. Readers observe Tom venting remorseful
utterance:
“Why do I blame fortune? I am myself the cause of my misery. All the dreadful mischiefs
which have befallen me are the consequences only of my own folly and vice.”(Roscoe, 1841
Book. xviii, chapter. i, p. 255)
In fact, far from justifying misconduct, the author of Tom Jones laid himself out to enforce the moral that every
transgression, no matter how strong the temptation to it may have been, is infallibly and horribly visited on the
transgressor.

18. Suffering and Eventual Purgation:

During boyhood, Tom’s imprudent actions result in his tremendous suffering. He faced whipping; he is
expelled from Allworthy’s house; he goes to jail and finally he is ridiculed by Sophia. Both psychologically and
physically he suffers. Coleridge’s prudent opinion, hence, is worth mentioning: “Every indiscretion, every
immoral act, of Tom Jones (and it must be remembered that he is in every one taken by surprise his inward
principles remaining firm) is so instantly punished by embarrassment and unanticipated evil consequences of his
folly, that the reader's mind is not left for a moment to dwell or run riot on the criminal indulgence itself. A
modern critic, Stephen remarks favourably that Tom Jones has a moral learnt by Fielding in his school life:
“It is the moral that dissipation bears fruits in misery The remorse, it is true, which was
generated in Fielding and in his heroes was not the remorse which drives a man to a cloister, or
which even seriously poisons his happiness.”
(Stephen,1892, p.177)
At last, Tom Jones rejected Mrs. Fitzpatrick’s proposal of illicit affair. In the case of Lady Bellaston, he was not
easy of mind and took pains to avoid her by feigning illness. It was only to get rid of her that he proposed
marriage to her. On the other hand, when the proposal of marriage came to him from Mrs. Hunt, an aristocratic

176
Research on Humanities and Social Sciences www.iiste.org
ISSN (Paper)2224-5766 ISSN (Online)2225-0484 (Online)
Vol.4, No.28, 2014

widow, he politely declined. Dobson, in this respect, asserts that Tom Jones has still some sorts of sincerity to
ignore allurement:
“Towards the end of the book, for instance, it has to be shown that Jones has still some power
of resisting temptation, and he accordingly receives from a Mrs. Arabella Hunt, a written offer
of her hand, which he declines.” (Dobson, 1917, p. xxix)

Ultimately Tom returned to the path of virtue from his indiscrete boyish deviation by ignoring irresistible
temptation. Makepeace Thackeray rightly comments upon Tom’s childhood follies and his subsequent, heart-felt
disquiet for rectification:
“He is wild Tom Jones, … less wild, I am glad to think, than his predecessor: at least heartily
conscious of demerit, and anxious to amend.” (Thackeray, 1917, p. xix)

As per the part of the universal Heavenly process of sin and redemption, as a human being, Tom suffers for his
flaws, realizes them and sounds conscious to be corrected.

19. Sophia’s Recognition and Tom’s Reformation:

Through Sophia’s acceptance of Tom Jones, the latter completes the rigorous process of cathersis since she is
universally acknowledged by all readers as well as critics as the paradigm of righteousness. She symbolises
Henry Fielding’s wife, Charlotte Cradock of Salisbury, whom Fielding dearly loved. Tom Jones became an
altered figure like Fielding following his marriage with her. Neilson rightly remarks:

“Meantime, in 1735, he had married Miss Charlotte Cradock of Salisbury, who is considered
to have been the original of … Sophia Western … His marriage was the turning point of his
career. The wildness of his youth disappeared, to be bitterly repented of during the rest of his
life.” (Eliot,1917, p. xvi)

Tom Jones’s reformation could be a hard nut to crack if Sophia would not acknowledge Tom as worthy of being
her husband. As a matter of fact, Tom-Sophia matrimony largely contributes to the completion of the moral
development of Tom Jones. Gerould’s criticism is precisely worthwhile:
“So the curtain falls on a scene of domestic bliss in which the beauteous Sophia and the
reformed Thomas Jones are the central figures.” (Gerould, 1905, p. liv)
Tom, at length, deserves Sophia through a long vicissitude of going astray, being repentant and getting
optimistic.

20. Conclusion.
Born of Miss Bridget and one Mr. Summer, a university student lodging in the house of Mr. Allworthy,
Tom was discovered as a foundling. Seeing him helpless, Allworthy treated him with all modes of consideration
and Tom himself sincerely stood devoted to Allworthy. From his earliest years, Tom discovered a propensity to
such petty mischiefs as robbing an orchard, stealing a duck, or picking his playmate’s pocket in a ball. As he
advanced in life, he exhibited a certain limitation to which injudicious juveniles too easily fall preys, especially
if they live in the environment of indomitable temptations. He is brave, generous, chivalrous, kind to the poor
and courteous to women. Even a tinge of two-facedness or pretentiousness does not lie in him, although he
always remains unimaginably outlying from foresight. Our highest empathy rests with him, if we sense that he
counted himself as a foundling entirely relying upon Allworthy’s munificence, and, as such, hardly anticipating
to be allowed to marry Sophia, that in his trivial falls before he was expelled by Allworthy, he was still
tremendously liberal and self-denying, and that, after he was turned out from home, his case was wretched
enough to be pitied. Those who look upon human nature as keenly and intrepidly as Fielding did, knowing how
frail and fallible it is- how prone to fall away by accident or passion- can hardly deny the truth of Tom Jones. It
is reasonable to believe that Tom Jones is an idealized portrait of Fielding himself- especially as he was in his
youth. The principal figure and protagonist of the novel is, of course, Tom Jones, the foundling; He is manly,
and is a good sportsman. He endears himself, in the beginning, to Squire Western for his sports-manlike
qualities. Squire Western loved the young boy so much that he wished he had a son with such intelligence.
Tom’s chief heroic feature is his daring, superb spirit, and his warmth of outlook. He tends to have animal spirit,
but he is never unpolished in his manners. Although Tom Jones is sometimes unsagacious in his ethical habits,
but he is never mean-minded or hypocritical. Tom’s selflessness, his keenness to ease others’ anguish, his good
humour and gaiety, render him heroic. Tom’s personality, his traits of the heart and spirit, rightly recommends

177
Research on Humanities and Social Sciences www.iiste.org
ISSN (Paper)2224-5766 ISSN (Online)2225-0484 (Online)
Vol.4, No.28, 2014

themselves to Allworthy, who regarded him as his own son. He only cherished- so do we- Tom had a little
discretion or prudence, as a defense to his many shades of virtue. Tom Jones stands out in contrast with Blifil,
Squire Allworthy’s nephew and Tom’s opponent, who is ruthless and nasty and whose mind was never moved
with leniency. Since Blifil is tricky, narcissistic, two-faced, covetous and ambitious despite his ostensible
religiosity, he serves as a foil who as Tom’s adversary endeavours to get Sophia for fortune, but is deprived of
both. On the other hand, by marrying Sophia, the incarnation of virtue, Tom Jones obtains fulfillment and gets
purgated.

Works Cited
Baker, Sheridan (Ed.). (1973). Tom Jones: Henry Fielding. New York: W. w. Norton & company.
Barbauld, Anna Laetitia. (1804). The Correspondence of Samuel Richardson. (Vol. V). London: J. Adlard,
Duke-street, West-Smithfield.
Bosswell, James. (1832). The Life of Samuel Johnson.(Vol. I) Boston: Carter, Hendee and Co.
Bosswell, James. (1836). Johnsonia. London: A. Spottiswoode.
Coleridge, Henry Nelson. (1836). Specimens of the Table Talk of Samuel Taylor Coleridge.(2nd Ed.). London:
John Murray, Albemarle Street.
Cross, Wilbur L. (1918), The History of Henry Fielding. USA: Yale University Press.
Daiches, David. (1960). A Critical History of English Literature, London: Martin Secker & Warburg Ltd.
Dobson, Austin. (1917). General Introduction to Harvard Classics Shelf of Fiction, Vol. I & II. New York: P. F.
Collier & Son.
Eliot, Charles William (1917). General Introduction to Harvard Classics Shelf of Fiction, Vol. I & II. New York:
P. F. Collier & Son.
Fielding, Henry. (1907). The History of Tom Jones: A Foundling. NEW YORK: The Century Co.
Gerould, Gordon Hall. (Ed.) (1905). Selected Essays of Henry Fielding. London: Ginn & Company.
Hawkins, John. (Ed.). (1787). The Works of Samuel Johnson.(Vol. I). London: J. Rivington and Sons.
Hawkins, John. (1914). The Life of Samuel Johnson. London: J. Rivington and Sons.
Hill, G. B. (1887). Boswell’s Life of Johnson.(Vol. II). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Lucas, E. V. (Ed.). ( 1903) The Works of Charles and Mary Lamb. (Vol. I) New York: G. P. Putnam.
Moore, Thomas. (1832). The Works Of Lord Byron, His Letters And Journals, And His Life. London: John
Murray, Albemarle Street.
Murphy, Arthur. (1806). The Works of Henry Fielding with an Essay on His Life and Genius. (Vol. I) London: J.
Nicholas and Son.
Rhys, Ernest.(Ed.) (1908). History of Tom Jones, a Foundling. (Vol. I, p. ) London: J M DENT & SONS.
Roscoe, Thomas.(Ed.).(1841). The Works of Henry Fielding.(2nd Ed.). London: Washbourne Salisbury Square.
Shedd, W.G.T. (1884). (Ed.). Complete Works of Samuel Taylor Coleridge. New York: Routledge.
Stephen, Leslie. (1892). Hours in a Library (Vol. II). London: Smith, Elder, & Company.
Thakeray,William Makepeace. (2007). The English Humorists of the Eighteenth Century and Charity and
Humour. USA: The University Michigan Press.
Williams, Ioan. (1968). Sir Walter Scott on Novelists and Fiction. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul Ltd.
Zimmern, Helen. (Ed.). (1887). Sir Joshua Renolds’ Discourses. London: Walter Scott.

178
 ARTICLE
https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-021-00849-z OPEN

A stylistic analysis of Henry Fielding’s Tom Jones: a

socio-pragmatic view
Hosni Mostafa El-dali 1✉

The purpose of this study is three fold; first, it attempts to show to what extent Fielding’s
writings unfold the basic characteristics of the eighteenth century lines of thinking, foremost
1234567890():,;

of which is the importance of context for the determination of meaning. Second, it attempts
to show Fielding’s philosophy of human nature which, according to him, is a mixture of man’s
selfishness, greediness, honesty and charity, all of which are characteristics of the ‘characters’
nature. Third, the present study sheds some light on Fielding’s technique in writing. The
importance of introducing ironic techniques is to stimulate the reader’s mental imagination to
understand opposite meanings and in consequence adopt a proper evaluation of the char-
acter’s behaviour. Fielding discusses through irony some important concepts such as chastity,
reason and gentility, yet no direct clue is given to the readers to give a precise interpretation
about them. It is also through irony that the interpretation of these concepts are hindered by
perplexing assumptions as connotations of meaning make it difficult for the readers to give
any judgment or adopt any evaluation. The study shows that Fielding’s technique in ‘Tom
Jones’ is incorporated within a third omniscience narrative, which gives the narrator the
chance to preside over his creation and commenting on certain attitudes and actions. It
concludes that the mark of shame bestowed by earlier critics on Fielding as intrusive narrator
is eliminated on the grounds that his presence within the text is directed for teaching
purposes.

1 Department of Cognitive Sciences, College of Humanities and social Sciences, United Arab Emirates University, Al Ain, United Arab Emirates.
✉email: hasan.mostafa@uaeu.ac.ae

HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | (2021)8:167 | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-021-00849-z 1

ARTICLE HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-021-00849-z
A
Introduction
pplying linguistics to the study of literature has been
evolving an increasing desire for investigation and eva-
luation. The study of literature implies the evaluation of
style, and style itself works as an intermediary between language
and literature. The present study is a stylistic analysis of language
use and characterization in Henry Fielding’s Tom Jones from a
socio-pragmatic perspective. It claims that a close—reading of the
work based on a socio-pragmatic perspective can help illuminate
intriguing aspects of Fielding’s novel and its relationship with its
intellectual context; the role of contextualization in the creation of
meaning; the idea that ideal character is of a mixed nature, and
the use of satire and irony as main features of Fielding’s style,
though which he attempts to capture the dual understanding of
‘charity’, chastity’, and ‘benevolence’. Some points have already
been discussed by many critics such as the picaresque features in
Fielding’s literary work and his narrative omniscient point of
view, the God-like narrator and the role of the reader (see Alter,
1964; Apostoli, 2004; Ardila, 2010, 2015; Claude, 2007; Eisenberg,
2018; Jakubjakova, 2017; Mancing, 2015; Wicks, 2002; Birke,
2015; Iser, 1978; O’Halloran, 2007).
The purpose
The present study, first, attempts to show to what extent Field-
ing’s writings unfold the basic characteristics of the eighteenth-
century lines of thinking, foremost of which is the importance of
context for the determination of meaning. Fielding’s concern is
mostly directed to the flexibility of language, to ways of making
the mind more flexible and capable of drawing shades of mean-
ing. Second, it attempts to show Fielding’s philosophy of human
nature, which, according to him, is a mixture of man’s selfishness,
greediness, honesty and charity, all of which are characteristics of
the ‘characters’ nature. Fielding’s target is to expound that vice
contradicts virtue and that there is no way for evil to prevail, thus
it is the latter which ultimately triumphs over the former. In
addition, the present study sheds some light on Fielding’s tech-
nique in writing. The importance of introducing ironic techni-
ques is to stimulate the reader’s mental imagination to
understand opposite meanings and in consequence adopt a
proper evaluation of the character’s behaviour. Fielding discusses
through irony some important concepts, namely, chastity, reason
and gentility, yet no direct clue is given to the readers to give a
precise interpretation about them. It is through irony that
interpretations of these concepts are hindered by perplexing
assumptions as connotations of meaning make it difficult for the
readers to give any judgment or adopt any evaluation.
Organization of the study
The present study consists of six interrelated sections as follows:
(1) Introduction/the purpose; (2) methodological background; (3)
literature review, which covers four pertinent issues. Section
“Discourse: Three approaches to discourse analysis” presents a
review of the term ‘discourse’ and the three approaches in dis-
course analysis. Section “Language, linguistics, and literature”
examines the relationship between language, linguistics and lit-
erature. Section “Stylistics and literary studies” examines the
relationship between stylistics and literary studies, and section
“Controversial views of Henry Fielding” deals with the con-
troversial views of Henry Fielding. Section “Discussion” consists
of four sub-sections. Section “Fielding’s narrative technique”
deals with Fielding’s narrative technique’, section “Henry Fielding
and the technique of irony in Tom Jones” deals with Fielding’s
technique of irony in Tom Jones, section “Fielding’s characters in
Tom Jones” deals with Fielding’s characters in Tom Jones, with
special reference to the two concepts of ‘chastity’ and ‘charity’;
2 HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | (2021)8:167 | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-021-00849-z
section “A political reading of Tom Jones: Fielding as a political
operative” presents a political reading of Tom Jones and Fielding
as a political operative, which is mainly based on Hume (2010);
section “Conclusion” presents the conclusions of the study and,
section “Bibliography” presents the references of the study.
Methodological background
According to Mcintyre (2012, pp. 1–2), “it is a good idea to start
[our analysis] with [our] initial thoughts and feelings about the
text [we] are going to analyse. Then when we do the actual
analysis, we can see if we were right or wrong in our initial
interpretation. The linguistic structure of the text, sometimes,
does not support our interpretation, in which case we may have
to reconsider this in the light of our analysis. This is why stylistics
is useful as a method of interpreting texts”. The stylistic analysis
carried out in the present study is embedded within a framework
of critical discourse analysis (CDA), as will be clarified later.
The present study uses the content analysis technique. Content
analysis is a highly flexible research method that has been widely
used. It is applied in qualitative, quantitative, and sometimes
mixed modes of research frameworks and employs a wide range
of analytical techniques. As a research methodology, it has its
roots in the study of mass communication in the 1950s (Berelson,
1952; Busha and Harter, 1980; de Sola Pool, 1959; Krippendorff,
2004). Since then, researchers in many fields have used content
analysis and, in the process, they have adapted content analysis to
suit the unique needs of their research questions. They, also, have
developed a cluster of techniques and approaches for analysing
texts grouped under the broad term of textual analysis. As defined
by Krippendorff (2004, p. 18), content analysis is a research
technique for making replicable and valid differences from texts
(or other meaningful matter) to the contexts of their use. Such a
definition emphasizes the fact that the notion of inference is
especially important in content analysis.
The present study uses qualitative content analysis (QCA) as a
research methodology. Qualitative content analysis is one of the
several qualitative methods currently available for analysing data
and interpreting its meaning (Scheier, 2012). As a research
method, it represents a systematic and objective means of
describing and quantifying phenomena (Downe-Wamboldt,
1992; Schreier, 2012). A prerequisite for successful content ana-
lysis is that data can be reduced to concepts that describe the
research phenomenon (Cavanagh, 1997; Elo and Kyngäs, 2008;
Hsieh and Shannon, 2005) by creating categories, concepts, a
model, conceptual system, or conceptual map (Elo and Kyngäs,
2008). The research question specifies what to analyse and what
to create ((Elo and Kyngäs, 2008; Schreier, 2012). QCA is mainly
inductive; that is, research questions guide data gathering and
analysis. Its main objective, is ‘to capture the meanings, emphasis,
and themes of messages and to understand the organization and
process of how they are presented’. Relatedly, Krippendorff (2004,
p. 00) refers to the objective of QCA as follows: ‘[to] search for
multiple interpretations by considering diverse voices (readers),
alternative perspectives (from different ideological positions,
oppositional readings (critiques), or varied uses of the texts
examined (by different groups).
The data used in content analysis studies must satisfy, at least,
two conditions; first, the data must provide useful evidence for
testing hypotheses or answering research questions; and, second,
the data communicate or provide a message from a sender to a
receiver. Both conditions are quite satisfied in the data of the
present study; namely, Fielding’s work, Tom Jones. Moreover, in
QCA studies, including the present study, the data are subject to
purposive sampling to allow for identifying complete, accurate
HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-021-00849-z
answers to research questions. It is, also, important to emphasize
the point that selection of the data has been a continuous process.
Analysing the data is integrated into coding much more in
qualitative content analysis than in quantitative content analysis.
The emphasis is always on answering the research questions.
The most widely used criteria for evaluating qualitative content
analysis are those developed by Lincoln and Guba (1985). They
used the term trustworthiness. The aim of trustworthiness in a
qualitative inquiry is to support the argument that the inquiry’s
findings are ‘worth paying attention to’ (Lincoln and Guba, 1985).
This is especially important when using inductive content ana-
lysis as categories are created from the raw data without a theory-
based categorization matrix. Several other trustworthiness eva-
luation criteria have been proposed for qualitative studies (Emden
et al., 2001; Lincoln and Guba, 1985; Neuendorf, 2002; Polit and
Beck, 2012; Schreier, 2012). However, a common feature of these
criteria is that they aspire to support the trustworthiness by
reporting the process of content analysis accurately. Lincoln and
Guba (1985) have proposed four alternatives for assessing the
trustworthiness of qualitative research, that is, credibility,
dependability, conformability, and transferability.
Literature review
Discourse: Three approaches to discourse analysis
Defining ‘Discourse’. ‘Discourse’, used as a mass noun, means
roughly the same as ‘language use’ or ‘language-in-use’. As a
count noun (a discourse), it means a relatively discrete subset of a
whole language, used for specific social or institutional purposes.
More specifically, ‘discourse’ as a mass noun and its strict lin-
guistic sense, refers to connected speech or writing occurring at
suprasentential levels. As Van Dijk (1985) points out, our modern
linguistic conception of discourse (as language use) owes much to
the ancient distinction between grammar and rhetoric. Gram-
marians explored the possibilities a language can offer a ‘calculus’
for representing the world, and were concerned with correctness
of usage. By contrast, rhetoricians focused upon practical uses of
speech and writing as means of social and political persuasion. In
this regard, Georgakopoulou and Goutsos (1999) point out
“despite the centuries-old tradition of the mother discipline of
rhetoric, three decades ago there were only two isolated attempts
to study language beyond the sentence with specifically linguistic
methods; namely Harris (1952) and Mitchell (1957).
The approaches to discourse analysis. There are three main
approaches to discourse and its analysis in contemporary scho-
larship: (1) the formal linguistic approach (discourse as text); (2)
the empirical sociological approach (discourse as conversation)
and (3) the critical approach (discourse as power/knowledge). It
should be borne in mind, however, that each approach is, in itself,
a multi-disciplinary; each has its own controversies, and contra-
dictions. However, each is sufficiently different from the others.
The Text-Linguistic Perspective is often referred to as the
‘formal approach’ to discourse. It tends, largely, to construe
discourse as text. It is the most direct descendant of Harris (1952)
and Mitchell (1957). Like Harris, it continues to have faith in
formal linguistic methods of analysis. Like Mitchell, it moves
linguistics, as a different discipline, as mainly been in the
direction of social functions and naturally occurring samples. A
more recent heir to the formalist approach has been ‘Text
Linguistics’ (TL). The term was pioneered by Van Dijk (1972)
and later developed by De Beaugrande (1980, 1984) though Van
Dijk has, to some extent, recast TL as discourse analysis.
As previously mentioned, the ongoing use of texts in their
communicative environment; that is, in their contexts, has been
referred to as ‘discourse’. ‘Discourse’ and ‘text’ have been used in
HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | (2021)8:167 | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-021-00849-z
ARTICLE
the literature in a variety of ways. In some cases, the two terms
have been treated as synonyms, while in others the distinction
between discourse and text has been taken to apply to units of
spoken versus written communication. Consequently, discourse
analysis is, in some accounts, regarded as concerned with spoken
texts (primarily conversation). Text linguistics, as a different
discipline, has mainly been associated with written texts. According
to Georgakopoulou and Goutsos (1999, p. 3) the two terms do not
refer to different domains (speech and writing) but reflect a
difference in focus. In this regard, Slembrouk (2003, p. 1) points
out that “Discourse analysis does not presuppose a bias towards the
study of either spoken or written language. In fact, the monolithic
character of the categories of speech and writing is increasingly
being challenged”. Discourse, then, is the umbrella term for either
spoken or written communication beyond the sentence. Text is the
basic means of this communication, be it spoken or written, a
monologue or an interaction. Discourse is, thus, a more embracing
term that calls attention to the situated uses of text: it comprises
both text and context. However, text is not just a product of
discourse, as customarily assumed (Brown and Yule, 1983), that is,
the actual (written or spoken) record of the language produced in
an interaction. Text is the means of discourse, without which
discourse would not be a linguistic activity (see El-dali,
2011, 2012, 2019a, 2019b; Boisvert and Thiede, 2020; Hart, 2020).
The empirical approach consists of sociological forms of
analysis which have taken ‘discourse’ to mean human conversa-
tion. Its object has been not merely the formal description of
conversational ‘texts’, but also the common sense knowledge at
the basis of conversational rules and procedures. The most
fruitful work to date has been accomplished in the area of
conversation analysis (CA). The major strength of conversation
analysis lies in the idea that an important area of interactional
meaning is revealed in the sequence. Its most powerful idea is that
human interactants continually display to each other, in the
course of interaction, their own understanding of what they are
doing. This, among other things, creates room for a much more
dynamic, interactional view on speech acts.
In Fairclough’s words, (1992, p. 7) the critical approach “is not
a branch of language study, but an orientation towards language
… with implications for various branches. It highlights how
language conventions and practices are invested with power
relations and ideological processes which people are often
unaware of”. To that end, this approach investigates language
behavior in everyday situations of immediate and actual social
relevance: discourse in education, media and other institutions. It
does not view context variables to be correlated to an autonomous
system of language; rather, language and the social are seen as
connected to each other through a dialectical relationship. Texts
are deconstructed and their underlying meanings made explicit;
the object of investigation is discursive strategies which legitimize
or ‘naturalize’ social processes (Orpin, 2005; K. O’Halloran, 2007;
Campbell and Roberts, 2007). Van Dijk (2006, 2008a, 2008b)
argues that it is not the social situation itself that influences the
structure of text and talk, but rather the definition of the relevant
properties of the communicative situation by the discourse
participants. Van Dijk (2008a, p. ix) argues that “the new
theoretical notion developed to account for these subjective
mental constructs is that of context models, which play a crucial
role in interaction and in the production and comprehension of
discourse. They dynamically control how language use and
discourse are adapted to their situational environment, and hence
define under what conditions they are appropriate”. According to
Van Dijk, context models are the missing link between discourse,
communicative situations and society, and hence are also part of
the foundations of pragmatics. As Van Dijk (2008a, p. vii) points
out “in most of the disciplines of the humanities and social
3
ARTICLE HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-021-00849-z
sciences there is growing but as yet unfocused interest in the
study of context”.
In conclusion, “while it is correct to say that discourse analysis
is a subfield of linguistics, it is also appropriate to say that
discourse analysis goes beyond linguistics as it has been
understood in the past … discourse analysts research various
aspects of language not as an end in itself, but as a means to
explore ways in which language forms are shaped by and shape
the contexts of their use.” At the same time, discourse analysis is a
cross-discipline and, as such, finds itself in interaction with
approaches from a wide range of other disciplines. Discourse
analysis is, thus, an interdisciplinary study of discourse within
linguistics: “Discourse analysis is a hybrid field of enquiry. Its
‘lender disciplines’ are to be found within various corners of the
human and social sciences, with complex historical affiliations
and a lot of cross-fertilization taking place” (Slembrouk, 2003, p.
1). It must be emphasized, however, that a single, integrated and
monolithic approach is actually less satisfactory than a piecemeal
and multi-theoretical approach.
Language, linguistics, and literature. Language is one of the most
important aspects of communication. Nowadays, we can find
almost everybody around us using a particular language to com-
municate. Language is a wonder as it helps to spread our ideas,
thoughts and let others know about our mood through time, space
and culture. In addition, if one were to take an informal survey
among non-linguists regarding the primary function of human
language, the overwhelmingly most common answer would be,
“language is used for communication”. As Van Valin (2001, p. 319)
maintains, “this is the common sense view of what language is for”.
However, some of the most prominent linguists in the field reject
this view, and many others hold that the fact that language may be
used for communication is largely, if not completely, irrelevant to its
study and analysis (See Evans, 2018: Simpson et al., 2018; Mooney
et al., 2011). In other words, the majority of professional linguists
used to adopt a view of language which is at odds with the view held
by non-linguists. The phenomenon of communication has often
been thought of as peripheral in linguistic research. This view is a
result of the strong hold the abstract objectivist language conception
has had on modern linguistic thought. Communication has been
reduced to a subordinate place amongst the possible functions of
language. This low status attributed to communication is challenged
by different pragmatic approaches to language. On the other hand,
the content and use of the term ‘communication’ is even by
humanistic standards extremely ambiguous, and it has, therefore,
often been difficult to use in practical, empirical work.
The primary concern of linguists such as Franz Boas and
Ferdinand de Saussure at the start of the 20th century was to lay
out the foundations for linguistic science and to define explicitly
the object to be investigated in linguistic inquiry. Carston (1988,
p. 206) points out that “before Chomsky, linguistics tended to be
a taxonomic enterprise, involving collecting a body of data
(utterances) from the external world and classifying it without
reference to its source, the human mind.” Chomsky (1965)
proposed a distinction analogous but not identical to Saussure’s
and Bloomfield’s, namely competence vs. performance. In his
distinction, Chomsky sees that the proper domain of linguistic
inquiry is competence only. In the Chomskyan linguistic
tradition, well-formedness plays the role of the decision-maker
in questions of linguistic ‘belonging’. That is, a language consists
of a set of well-formed sentences: it is these that ‘belong’ in the
language, no others do. This is the definition that has been the
bulwark of the Chomskyan system since the late 1950s.
Linguistic studies which depend upon elicitations from only
one or a few informants are now recognized as leaving
4 HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | (2021)8:167 | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-021-00849-z
unanswered many significant questions about the relation
between language and the social context in which it is always
embedded. Language is no longer viewed “as a closed system, but
as one which is in perpetual flux” (Johnson, 2002, p. 16).
Moreover, the extraordinary growth of sociolinguistics in the last
decade or so has shown convincingly that language is closely
linked to its context and that isolating it artificially for study
ignores its complex and intricate relation to society.
The idea of extending linguistic analysis to include commu-
nicative functions was, first, proposed by Czech linguists. As Van
Valin (2001, p. 328) points out, “all contemporary functional
approaches trace their roots back to the work of the Czech
linguist Mathesius. By the end of the 1970s, a number of
functional approaches were emerging in both U.S. and Western
Europe. Some of the most important and coherent attempts of
communication-relevant approaches to language are (1) Soviet
Semiotic Dialogism; (2) The Prague School, and (3) Functional-
ism (see McHoul, 1994). More specifically, Halliday attempted to
explain the structure of language as a consequence of social
dialogue. According to Halliday (1978, p. 2), language does not
consist of sentences; it consists of interactional discourse. People
exchange meanings in socially and culturally defined situations.
When they speak to each other, they exchange meanings, which
reflect their feelings, attitudes, expectations and judgments. In
this regard, Bates (1987) noted that functionalism is like
‘Protestantism’, a group of warring sects, which agree only on
the rejection of the authority of the Pope. All functionalists agree
that language is a system of forms for conveying meaning in
communication and, therefore, in order to understand it, it is
necessary to investigate the interaction of structure, meaning and
communication. As Van Valin (2001) points out, functionalists
normally focus on linguistic functions from either of two
perspectives; the first is referred to as the ‘pragmatics’ perspective,
and the second as the ‘discourse’ perspective. The first
concentrates on the appropriate use of different speech acts.
The second perspective is concerned with the construction of
discourse and how grammatical and other devices are employed
to serve this end.
Employing the linguistic rules on artistic works results in what
is known as stylistics. It has to do with the different uses of words,
expressions, sentence-structures and speech sounds in a given
text. Stylistics is a branch of linguistics, while the latter
investigates no units larger than a sentence, the former examines
bigger units of linguistic formation. Such bigger units of linguistic
formation, constitute the context of a work, known as the style of
an author. The way of writing of an author is also called register.
Chapman (1973, p. 11) states that the distinctive usages of
languages are known as styles; and that the “Linguistic study of
different styles is called stylistics”. Stylistic analysis of a given text
which functions through linguistics, primarily aims at the analysis
of discourse in such text. Short (1986, p. 158) states that the
stylistic analysis has to do with criticism, through which
evaluation, interpretation, and textual description of a literary
work are identified. The realtion of linguistics to literary criticism
is what Chomsky (1968, p. 81) has called, “The close relation
between innate properties of the mind and features of linguistic
structure”.
The importance of conducting a study of literary language by
means of linguistics, has taken the form of ‘Discourse Analysis’.
However, the application of linguistic characteristics to literary
texts, has proved that literature has linguistic form and that some
sort of harmony exists between linguistics and literature. Stylistics
which is a branch of linguistics, investigates the relationship
between style and literary function or the application of linguistic
characteristics to literary language. Richards (1985) states that
stylistics is associated with the study of style, based on the
HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-021-00849-z
situation in which the writer, speaker or addressor intends to
create on the reader, hearer or addressee. Although stylistics
sometimes contemplates spoken language, it mainly refers to the
study of written language. The different uses of words,
expressions, sentence-structures and speech sounds are incorpo-
rated with the stylistic characteristics of a given text. Carter (1986,
p. 19) says that there are two branches of stylistics, namely
linguistic stylistics and literary stylistics. The former kind studies
ways of anlysing samples of style and language, especially the
non-liteary language. The latter kind of stylistics, namely, literary
stylistics, studies methods of conceiving, interpretating and
estimating the literary works, by virtue of criticism. It also
studies ways of analysing literary discourse, especially as regards
the narrative techniques. Leech (1981, p. 11) states that stylistics,
“is simply defined as the linguistic study of style … (and) simply
(is) an exercise in describing what use is made of language”. In
the meantime Leech tries to explain the aim of literary stylistics,
indicating that its target is to expound the relationship between
language and the artistic function.
The function of stylistics is to expound interpretations already
existing within the context of a comprehensive unit of linguistic
performance. Short (1986) attempts to enumerate levels of
interpretation within a literary discourse. “Copiousness”, for
instance examines sentences in case that “they are long and have
lots of clauses within them”. “Simplicity” examines the style, if it
is simple or not. Simple style shows that an author does not
attempt to puzzle the reader by complex formations. “Sequen-
cing” among the levels of interpretations reflects the order in
which the events of a discourse has taken place, the order in
which the thoughts of a character in a literary work have occurred
and the order in which the addressor or the writer depicts the
information to his addressees or readers.
Style indicates the route in which language operates in a given
context. Style is a term used to show the function of language in
spoken and written discourse as well as in literary and non-
literary fields. The word in its wide sense, covers also the way of
writing of any author; and it is an instrument by virtue of which,
a linguist could examine the choices worked out by an author in a
particular context. Style also identifies the method of using
language either during a certain era or by a certain school of
writing. In this connection Leech (1981) states that style is “the
linguistic characteristic of a particular text”. He adds that style is
“a property of all texts”. Fowler (1971) states that style is
examined on two levels; the first is the level of context which
includes all utterances within a text and utterances in their term
are formed through a successinve sequence of sentences. Brown
(1983) differentiates between sentences and utterances, stating
that the features of spoken language are considered the features of
utterances and that the characteristics of written language belong
to sentences. However, the features of utterances are the output of
ordinary language beahviour. The second level of style is
examined within the framework of the form including ways of
organisation within a text. Style includes two models. Lang (1983)
says that the first model of style is associated with the noun,
dealing with the stylistic practice, only to attach to an object the
names of genres, figures of speech or periods of time. The second
model of style is that which has a nominative function dealing
with categories of style, including life styles, styles in dress or
artistic style. Chapman (1973, p. 6) quotes Quiller Couch’s
remark on style saying that, “Style in writing is much the same as
food manners in other human intercourse”.
The modern work in linguistic stylistics have divided style into
various types. Freeman (1970) says that there are three types of
style; style deviating from a specified course; style as divergence of
textual pattern and style utilizing grammar potentials. The former
kind of style is that which suggests that an author’s method of
HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | (2021)8:167 | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-021-00849-z
ARTICLE
writing could differ in certain ways in various fields of utilization.
The second kind of style is associated with examination of the
coherence elements within a text. Cohesion for instance examines
the use of determiners, pronouns, demonstratives, and adverbs as
being hinted before. Lack of cohesion affects the literary prose.
The last kind of style accounts for a kind of grammar that
foretells the language used in a text. In this connection, language
is to be judged on two levels of representaiton, the deep and
surface syntactic structures. Semantic interpretation proceeds
from deep structure and phonetic interpretation proceeds from
deep structure and phonetic interpretation stems from surface
structure. The two levels are related by a set of transformations
and the use of particular sets of transformations shape the
syntactic style of an author. Any kind of style to be undertaken by
an author is to be called “register”. Using a particular kind of style
such as the religious style or the legal style, probably means that
an author is adopting a ‘register’. Fowler (1971) quotes Leech
attempting to identify register saying “(it distinguishes) for
example, sopken language from written language, the language of
respect from the language of condescension, the language of
advertising from the language of science”. Register is a speech
variety used by a particular group of people usually sharing the
same occupation. Richards (1985) says that register is, “a
particular style … referred to as a stylistic variety”.
Chapman (1973) states that it is highly important that a writer
chooses registers aligning the situations they depict. Combining a
number of registers together without idnetifying the speakers and
the shifting of utterances are subjects worthy of study through
stylistics. According to Leech (1981) style in discourse is divide
dinto three categories of language use, namely, domain, mode and
tenor. Domain is the scale of register. The professional jargon in a
certain variety of language is the typical feature of domain. The
language of science differes from that of engineering. Thus
domain seems to deal with the activity of language within a
specific context. The distinction between speech and writing is
oncorportated within the category of mode. The relaitonship
between the speaker and the addressee(s) is the focal point in the
category of tenor. Their relationship whether official and distant,
or unofficial and close determines the way of use, either formal
and complex or informal and simple; polite showing indirect
request or familiar showing direct imperative, impersonal done in
the passive form of personal done in the active form. However,
the category of tenor in the literary works has to do with the point
of view operational in such activities. As long as such viewpoint is
to be communicated through language, then the medium of
language has to be also investigated (see Peck, 2011; Hardavella
et al., 2017; Fong Ha et al., 2010).
Stylistics and literary studies. Referring to the title of her article
‘Fielding’s Style’, Campbell (2005, p. 407) made the following
remark: “The topic announced by this essay’s title is seemingly
old-fashioned—perhaps some would even say, reactionary. The
word “style” invokes questions of aesthetic appreciation that
several decades of contextualizing criticism in the 1970s, and
1990s moved far from the center of literary study; to attempt to
describe an individual author’s style might seem to bespeak an
antiquated belief in some ineffable quality adhering in that
author, independent of his historical period or circumstances and
of the import of his work”. In what follows, I will show how
important it is to link linguistics to literature and to what extent
stylistics is valuable. As Levine (1996) points out “[W]e have to
understand that if there is no literature, there is no profession [of
literary studies]”. Less strictly pragmatically, he added his spare
attestation of faith that literary study consists of “reading the sorts
of texts that test most fully the possibilities of language and
5
ARTICLE HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-021-00849-z
meaning, and using skills developed to engage those texts suc-
cessfully. In this regards, McIntyle (2012, p. 1) points out that
since the emergence in the 1960s of English Language as a uni-
versity subject in its own right, the relationship between the study
of literature and the study of language has often been one of bitter
rivalry. Literary critics have railed against the ‘cold’, ‘scientific’
approach used by scholars of language in their analyses of literary
texts, whilst linguists have accused their literary colleagues of
being too vague and subjective in the analyses they produced.
Nowhere is this disagreement more clearly seen than in the clash
between Bateson and Fowleer (see Fowler, 1971), which had the
unfortunate effect of dragging the debate down to the level of
personal insult. Fowler’s famous question to Bateson asking him
whether he would allow his sister to marry a linguist represents,
perhaps, the nadir of this particular argument. The relationship
between literature and language, then, has, for the most part, been
an unhappy one, and this is unfortunate since undoubtedly
scholars in both disciplines have much to learn from one another.
It is possible to bridge the divide between language and literature
by using the anlytical techniques available within the sub-
discipline of language study known as stylistics. Taking a lin-
guistic approach to the analysis of a literary text does not have to
mean disregarding interpretation. Stylistic analysis can often
illuminate just why a particular literary text is regarded so highly.
Stylistics acknowledges the skills of the writer by assuming that
every decision made in the production of a text is deliberate,
despite whether these decisions were made consciouly or
unconsciously. Consequently, stylistics aims to explain the link
between linguistic form and literary effect, and to account for
what it is that we are responding to when we praise the quality of
a particular piece of writing.
A further aspect of textual analysis with which some
stylisticians concern themselves and about which others have
reservations, is the study of the extent to which interpretation is
influenced by tensions between the text and its reception in the
wider context of social relations and socio-political structures. In
some contexs stylistic analysis has become embedded within a
framework of Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA). In this way,
explorations of ideology and social power feature as part of a
stylistic analysis with attention paid both to the formal features of
the text and to its reception within a reading community. This
development has been the subject of some controversy, not least
because all texts chosen for analysis may generate ideological
considerations and interpretations according to the disposition of
the individual analyst. Nevertheless, despite such criticisms, CDA
has been the first attempt so far to formalise a methodology that
seeks to articulate the relationship between a text and the context
in which it is produced, received and interpreted, thus moving
beyond a concern with wholly text immanent interpretation and
considering wider social and cultural issues. Thus, what has
emerged in both theory and classroom practice is the view that,
although there are not an infinite number of possible interpreta-
tions and although it would be wrong to suggest that anything
goes, there is no single ‘correct’ way of analysing and interpreting
the text. In this sense, the appropriate method is very much a
hands-on approach taking each text on its own merits, using what
the reader knows, what the reader is aiming for in his or her
learning context, and employing all of the available tools, both in
terms of language knowledge and methodological approaches. It
is a process-based methodology which encourages learners to be
active participants in and explorers of linguistic and cultural
processes both with an awareness of and an interest in the process
itself, including the development of a metalanguage for articulat-
ing responses to it.
On the other hand, the last twenty years have seen significant
advances in linguistics, education and literary and cultural theory,
6 HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | (2021)8:167 | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-021-00849-z
a development that has provided a strong basis for exploring texts
using a diverse range of methodologies (see Hall, 2005 for a
comprehensive survey). Literary theory has embraced many
topics, including the nature of an author’s intentions, the
character and measurement of the responses of a reader and
the specific textuality of a literary text. In particular, there has also
been a continuing theorisation of the selection of literary texts for
study, which has had considerable resonance for the teaching of
literature and for its interfaces with the language classroom. On
the one hand, there is a view, widespread still internationally, that
the study of literarure is the study of a select number of great
writers judged according to the enduringly serious nature of their
examination of the human condition. On the other hand, there is
the view that the notion of literature is relative and that
ascriptions of value to texts are a transient process dependent on
the given values of a given time. How tastes change and
evaluations shift as part of a process of canon formation are
therefore inextricably bound up with definitions of what literature
is and what it is for. ln this respect, deftnitions of literature, and of
literacy language are either ontological establishing an essential,
timeless property of what literature or literary language is - or
functional - establishing the specific and variable circumstances
within which texts are designated as literary, and the ends to
which these texts are and can be used. Recent work on creativity
and language play has reinforced this awareness of both
continuities and discontinuities in degrees of literariness across
discourse types (Cook, 1994, 2000; Pope, 2005). One outcome has
been the introduction into language curricula, for both first and
for second or foreign language learners, of a much greater variety
of texts and text-types so that literary texts are studied alongside
advertisements, newspaper reports, magazines, popular song
lyrics, blogs, internet discourse and the many multi-modal texts
to which we have become accustomed (see Carter, 2010).
In the early part of the twentieth century, learning a foreign
language meant a close study of the canonical literature in that
language. In the period from the 1940s to the 1960s literature was
seen as extraneous to everyday communicative needs and as
something of an elitist pursuit. However, in the 1970 and 1980s
the growth of communicative language teaching methods led to a
reconsideration of the place of literature in the language
classroom with recognition of the primary authenticity of literary
texts and of the fact that more imaginative and representational
uses of language could be embedded alongside more referentially
utilitarian output. This movement has been called the ‘proficiency
movement’ which saw in literature ’an opportunity to develop
vocabulary acquisition, the development of reading strategies, and
the training of ctitical thinking, that is reasoning skills’. They
point out how awareness dawned that literature, since it had
cominuittes with other discourses, could be addressed by the
same pedagogic procedures as those adopted for the treatment of
all texts to develop relevant skills sets, especially reading skills,
leading in particular to explorations of what it might mean to
read a text closely (see Alderson, 2000).
Controversial views of Henry Fielding. In his survey of Henry
Fielding, Hume (2010) attempted to remind readers of two major
issues: (1) just how wildly views of Fielding have varied, early and
late; and (2) how radically the dominanat late twentieith-centrury
reading contradicts eighteenth-century assessments of Fielding
and his work. Henry Fielding, according to Hume, proved
exceptioally controversial and his reputation has variously soared
and crashed in the course of three centuries. Fielding’s reputation
suffered from two factors. The first is that he wrote about low
subjects. He did not always preserve the dignity of the clergy; his
work features bastards and fornicators; the world of crime and
HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-021-00849-z
squalor depicted even in the relatively exemplary Amelia both-
ered many of his genteel readers. For his time, he was much more
radical writer than most readers now realize. The second factor
that guaranteed the blackening of Fielding’s reputation was the
history of his changing political allegiances and his scandalous
personal life. His appointment as justice of the peace for West-
minister in October 1748 and his becoming magistrate for Mid-
dlesex County provoked ridicule and hostile outcry.
Fielding’s disorderly personal life put ammunition into the
hands of his litrary enemies, who seized on the lowness of his
fictional subjects with spiteful glee. The picture one gets from
public and private commentary during Fielding’s lifetime is of a
hard-living man of violent passions (positive and negative) who
could not manage money competently and could or would not
accommodate himself to the codes and pretenses of an urbane
upper class to which he did not really belong. Fielding’s
reputation, as Rawson (1959) observes “always suffered from
that eighteenth-century cult of ‘sensibility’ which professed itself
too refined for scenes of coarse or low life, and too tender-hearted
for satire”. Fielding was not without some defenders. Harold
Child points out that “Fielding established the form of the novel
in England”; that Tom Jones (1749) entitles him to be called “the
father of the English novel”; and that he “had fixed the form of a
new branch of literature”.
Early nineteenth-century writers are less fixated on the writer’s
life. During the twentieth-century, critical evaluation of his
writing underwent a drastic change. For fully two hundred years,
Fielding was usually seen as “the great structuralist and
technician” and contrasted with Richardson—“the great moral-
ist”. Fielding was sometimes condemned for being crude and
immoral, sometimes praised for realism, and sometomes just
enjoyed as a creator of jolly English romps. His literary morals
were sometimed defended, but hardly anyone saw him as a writer
whose cenrtral concern was moral instruction. The radical
reorientation that occurred in the ways Fielding was read and
understood is now largely associated with Battestin’s The Moral
Basis of Fielding’s Art (1959). For a majority of the critics of the
last half century, moral sermonizing is what has been taken as
“most characteristic” of Fielding. In addition, Hume (2010, p.
258) argues that Fielding’s writing has three major characteristics.
The first is that Fielding is experimental; in the sense that he is
not trying to associate himself closely with predecessors and
traditions. Fielding’s debts to earlier writers are unusually
minimal, and he does not stick to one or two models in drama
or fiction. He innovates, experiments, and takes chances. A
second major feature of Fielding’s writing is that it is
circumstantial. Fielding deals with and reacts to the events,
issues, politics, quarrels, social problems, and stresses of his place
and time, and he does so as a hackney writer out to make a quid.
He does not imagine alternative worlds, idealized worlds, or past
worlds. He is an engaged observer, a participant, a partisan. He is
an opportunist who will keep silent or change sides; he puts the
advantage of occasion above abstract principle, moralist through
he is. Fielding deals—sometimes humorously, sometimes not—
with a grubby milieu of crime, deceit, and lust. What many of his
contemporaries condemned as “low” we should regard as
“realistic”, at least in the terms of literature as it was written in
Fielding’s time.
A third characteristic of Fielding’s writing is its didacticism:
I say this with some hesitation, because didacticism is not a
positive quality for most present-day readers, academic or
otherwise, who regard it as boring, irritating, and preachy
(Hume, 2010, p. 259).
Today Fielding is universally acknowledged as a mjor figure in
the development of the novel, although there is still niggling
HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | (2021)8:167 | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-021-00849-z
ARTICLE
about whether he or Richardson is the “father” of the
British novel.
Discussion
Fielding’s narrative technique. Choosing a narrative point of
view is perhaps the most important and most difficult decision a
writer of a story can make. Point of view, like plot, character,
setting, and language is a creative decision; however, it is also very
much a technical decision. Someone has to tell the story. That
someone is called the narrator. The question is who will that
narrator be and what does that narrator know. Abrams (1981, p.
142) identifies the point of view, saying that it “Signifies the way a
story gets told, the mode or perspective established by an author
by means of which the reader is presented with the characters,
actions, setting and events which constitute the narrative in a
work of fiction”.
The point of view in a literary composition represents the
aspect from which the story telling and seeing is calibrated. It
does not only represent the dimension from which the author
projects his scene but also sets out the aspect from which the
reader is to view it. Point of view is the perspective from which a
story is narrated. Every story has a perspective, though there can
be more than one type of point of view in a work of literature.
The choice of the point of view from which to narrate a story
greatly affects both the reader’s experience of the story and the
type of information the author is able to impart. First person
creates a greater intimacy between the reader and the story, while
third person allows the author to add much more complexity to
the plot and development of different characters that one
character wouldn’t be able to perceive on his or her own. The
point of view in an artistic work represents the significance of its
overall form. Tackling the significance of the point of view, Allot
(1959, p. 181) indicates that the most complicated matter in the
craft of fiction is “… to be governed by the question of the point
of view—the question of the relation in which the narrator stands
to the story”. Point of view is very closely linked with the concept
of a narrator. Point-of-view impacts how close the reader feels to
what’s happening in the story. The narrator acts, as a proxy for
the reader and how close the narrator is to the story is how close
the reader will be to the story (see Peck, 2011; Hardvell et al.,
2017).
The narrators of Fielding’s Tom Jones focus on the omniscient
point of view in which the third-person narrative is outside the
story referring to characters either by their name or by the
pronouns, “he, she and they”. An omniscient narrator is more
able to present a complete and unbiased story. We can learn not
only what a character does, but also what other characters do
when the main character is not present. Abrams (1981, p. 143)
sees that the narrator of the omniscient point of view “knows
everything that needs to be known about the agents and events;
that he is free to move as he will in time and place, and to shift
from character to character, reporting …what he chooses of the
speech and actions; and also that he has privileged access to a
character’s thoughts and feelings and motives, as well as to his
overt speech and actions”. The narrator begins Joseph Andrews:
“Mr. Joseph Andrews, the hero of our ensuing history, was
esteemed to be the only son of Gaffer and Gammer Andrews …
whose virtue is at present so famous” (Book 1, Ch. 2, p. 41). It is
also the way that the narrator of Tom Jones starts “In that part of
the Western division of this kingdom which is commonly called
Somerset-Shire, there lately lived, and perhaps still lives a
gentleman, whose name was Allworthy …” (Book 1, Ch. 2, p. 53).
The narrator tends to put the overall work into a wellbeing
form; he plays the God-like role and the ruler who presides over
his fictitious or real formation. The narrator spells out the
7
ARTICLE HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-021-00849-z
function he undertakes “The writer may be celled in aid to spread
their history farther, and to present the amiable pictures to those
who have not the happiness of knowing the originals; and so by
communicating such valuable patterns to the world, he may
perhaps do a more extensive service to mankind …” (Book 1, Ch.
1, p. 39). The writer in this respect seems to have almost
cognizance of the historical aspects and thus he presents just
those patterns which are of vital importance to the service of
mankind. Allot (1959, p. 188) states that the eighteenth century
writers among them Fielding, attempt to adopt the first person
narrative view-point within the context of an exterior third
person narrative. This is of course, clearly hinted in the digressive
tales of the two books which are merely old methods of narration.
Throughout The History of Tom Jones, A Foundling (1749)
Henry Fielding makes his presence felt. He lectures, teases and
cajoles the reader, ponders the difficulties of his task, and draws
attention to his deft arrangement of material. In short, he never
lets us forget that he is telling a story, and that we are reading a
book. One of the most prominent features of Fielding’s intrusive
narration is his frequent direct address to an imagined reader.
The characteristic Fielding most frequently attributes to his
reader is sagacity. Early in the novel, for example, after comparing
Mrs. Wilkins—Squire Allworthy’s formidable housekeeper—to a
bird of prey, he breaks off:
The sagacious Reader will not, from this Simile, imagine
these poor people had any Apprehension of the Design with
which Mrs. Wilkins was now comong towards them; but as
the great beauty of the Simile may possibly sleep these
hundred years, till some future commentator shall take this
Work in hand, I think proper to lend the reader a little
Assistance in the Place.
Fielding constantly makes reference to the reader’s sagacity, or
speculates as to how his ‘Sagacious Reader’ might interpret a
particular scene. In all, he uses the word sagacious and its
cognates (‘sagacity’, ‘sagaciousness’, etc.) 41 time when speaking
in his own person. It is never used by any other character.
Fielding narrative style was much imitated in the decade
following the publication of Tom Jones. Early in the novel,
having introduced us to the principla characters, Fielding
announces that he wil pass over a space of around twelve years
in silence (since the incidents which took place in this period are
not immediately relevant to his narrative), and in doing so reflects
on the nature of his relationship with the reader:
We give him all such Seasons an Opportunity of employing
that wonderful sagacity, of which he is Master, by filling up
these vacant Spaces of Time with his own Conjectures; for
which Purpose, we have taken care to qualify him in the
preceding Pages (T.J. III.i, p. 116).
From the very beginning of the book, the reader is acquainted
with the fact that the story will be formed in proportion to the
self-conscious caprice of an individual, pertaining to the outward
existence of the world of the book. The work is categorized as an
art as much as a reflection of life. The book begins with the
introduction of the author as regards the narrative role. The
course of events is worked out by a skilful artist and the progress
of the novel’s picaresque episodes are not known in advance.
Fielding’s technique in his novels is dissimilar to that adopted in
Richardson’s novels, mostly undermines the existence of genuine
suspense, “what will happen next?” Although heroic persons and
sublime thoughts are major components of characters and
sentiments in the epic genre, they are undermined in Tom Jones.
As for the epic diction, it is highly used in burlesque form.
Fielding’s marked imitation of the epic action is the mock heroic
battles with obvious realism and with the life of the time. A
8 HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | (2021)8:167 | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-021-00849-z
distinction has been drawn between burlesque and comedy, while
the former makes a subject appears ridiculous by treating it in an
incongruous style as by presenting a lofty subject with vulgarity,
the latter makes a subject appear humorous in its treatment of
theme and character. Incongruity and absurdity are the sources
from which we derive our delight at burlesque. They are also the
essence of our delight at affectation, being the representation of
the ridiculous. On attempting a distinction between burlesque, or
its synonym ridicule, and comedy, Fielding is rectifying what has
been said by Locke about the ‘abuse of words’, which is
manifested in a gap between word and things (see Simpson
et al., 2018; Mooney et al., 2011; Hammudin, 2012): “An author
ought to consider himself, not as a gentleman who gives a private
or eleemosynary treat, but rather as one who keeps a public
ordinary, at which all persons are welcome for their money”
(Fielding’s Tom Jones, Bk 1, Ch. 1, p. 51). Meeting the narrator
early in the book before the hero, is significant; since the narrator
is neither objective nor omniscient, but rather a deliberate
awareness whose relationship with the reader influences his
interpretation and judgment of what is going on.
James (1968, pp. 13–14) has felt sorry that Tom, the hero, has
fallen a prey to clouds of mind, perplexity and confusion,
although a hero in his own eyes ought not to be in such a
situation. He suggests that the author of Tom Jones: “handsomely
possessed of a mind, has such an amplitude of reflexion for him
and round him that we see him through the mellow air of
Fielding’s fine old moralism, fine old humour and fine old style,
which somehow really enlarge, make everyone and everything
important”. Werner (1973, p. 71) points out that Fielding’s
narrative technique is indeed complex. Miller indicates that his
rhetoric is carefully calculated to achieve specific ends. All these
are indicators that Fielding, unlike Richardson, does not explore
the depths of human nature but registers the external surface of
the human behaviour (Miller, 1981, p. 209). Fielding’s most
successful works stand closely with Swift rather than Richardson.
Fielding resembles swift as both stress the importance of the uses
of language. Accordingly, the narrative consciousness becomes
important; it does not only project awareness but also affects the
response of the reader and his reappraisal of the presented
material.
Henry Fielding and the technique of irony in Tom Jones. Hume
(2010, p. 285) points out that our concept of early eighteenth-
century satire is heavily colored by the array of books and articles
published in the third quarter of the twentieth century by such
eminent scholars as Maynard Mack, Ian Jack, Robert C. Elliott,
Alvin Kernan, and Paulson. Their notions came largely from
Pope and Swift, for whom attack was the basic motivation of
satire. This is rarely true for Fielding, for whom instruciton is
much more central.
Arriving at the truth is a focal point on the level of the plot of
Tom Jones. The story begins with an esoteric and obscure birth
and ends with the unraveling of this mystery. When the truth is
revealed the book has given a line of unity. The theme of the
novel is marked by ways of unfolding truth and divulging deceit.
Irony which is used throughout the book enhances this theme,
since it is built on double meaning, and on this account one
attempts to seek the truth, which, lies behind the false appearance.
Hatfield claims that Fielding: “Takes a word which, by virtue of
the abusage of ‘custom’ has already a kind of built-in ironic
potential, and playing this ironigenic corrupt sense against the
‘proper and original’ meaning of the word that is developed in the
definition of action, seeks to restore the word to its rightful
dignity of meaning” (Hatfield, 1968, pp. 191–192). Irony relies on
double connotations of meaning that, are to be supplied by the
HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-021-00849-z
narrator, but this does not suggest that it is based on custom. A
further point, Fielding does not intend by writing a novel to
restore a word to its rightful dignity of meaning, unless it is meant
by Hatfield that he attempts to eliminate any corrupt use of a
word. Hutchens (1965, p. 111) proposes that irony is produced by
a gap between the accepted meaning of a word and its meaning in
the context it occurs. However, Hutchens seems to be like Levine,
as both consider irony not only a means through which, the
nature of the characters is exposed but also it serves as a means of
establishing truth. Hutchens states that: “The … techniques, of
connotative irony … by suggesting what is not true or good or
appropriate, throw into sharp relief what is" (Hutchens, 1965,
p. 146).
Irony as one of the distinguished devices exploited in Tom
Jones, mainly unravels connotations of meanings and the nature
of the characters. Irony in the limited sense of the word is relevant
to the use of words for conveying the opposite of their literal
meaning; or it might be identified as an expression or utterance
marked by a deliberate contrast between apparent and intended
meaning. The aim behind these contrasts of meaning is to initiate
humours or rhetorical effects. It might be notable as well that
incongruity arises between what might be expected and what
actually occurs. Fielding’s target for fully exploiting the device of
irony in Tom Jones is to delineate characters’ behavior and
conduct. Fielding’s technique sheds light on the significance of
irony end underlines the fact that language is not merely an
inflexible conveyer of information but rather the reader’s mind
has to be more flexible end capable of grasping shades of
meaning. Fielding’s technique of irony also destabilizes the
reader’s assurance of his unscrutinized notions. It is the attitudes
of the reader as much as those of the characters that are being
subject to examination by the novelist (see Le Boeuf, 2007; Gibbs,
1994; Attardo, 2000; Chen, 1990; Barbe, 1995; Kruez and Roberts,
1993; Clark and Gerrig, 1984).
Irony is largely exploited and the distinction between ‘love’ and
‘lust’ is also voiced throughout the book. ‘Justice’ and ‘mercy’ as
abstract values are also examined. The shifts in the narrative voice
impels the reader to derive information either, from relying
completely on the narrator or, from depending upon his own
potentials for measuring the value of the narrator’s claim, to
know a particular fact or not. Empson (1982, p. 142) indicates
that double irony is a means through which, the narrator, instead
of adopting one level of meaning by exposing the flaws in
another, ‘may hold some wise balanced position between them, or
contrariwise may be feeling a plague on both your houses.
Empson seems to initiate a third indicator, namely ‘qualified
irony’ in which, the narrator asserts that there is merit on both
sides which, is one method of explaining the prudence of Mrs.
Adams. Thus we can say that the basis of judgment of characters
is gone under complex attempts. Levine (1996, p. 79) views irony
in Tom Jones as a means of satirtic characterization. He
concentrates on the way through which the characters are
presented, but my concentration will be on the way through
which, the nature of the characters is unfolded. Their nature
shares some aspects of the reader’s nature and thus the reader is
invited implicitly to re-evaluate and perfectly judge the real
aspects and qualities of the characters themselves as well as those
of himself (see Kruez and Glucksberg, 1989; Brown, 1980; Mao,
1991; Glucksberg, 1995; Myers, 1977; Giora, 1995, 1997; Giora
et al., 1997; Amante, 1981).
Irony is one of the four kinds of humour which might be
operational in a fictional world. Satire, romance and farce are also
regarded as types of humour. The difference among the four
kinds could be reflected in the actions they represent. Lang (1983)
says that farce emphasizes a kind of comedy characterized by
loud, noisy and rough behavior. It leaves people at its end as they
HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | (2021)8:167 | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-021-00849-z
ARTICLE
were at its beginning. The repetition which the farce suggests is
the point which increases attraction to it. Romance often brings
agreements in feelings, always in the form of marriage. Satire
suggests ridicule and a form of mockery aiming to bring about a
conflict. While farce depends upon the physical use of power and
romance upon hopes and expectations, satire is designed to serve
its end without elaboration.
Irony has a doubling effect, a surface level and a real depth,
weakness and strength, affirmation and denial, all are included
within an ironic view. The doubling effects of irony are forced on
the investigator and it is his part to recognize the hidden ground.
Irony is the major form of humour found in Fielding’s discourse
of his classics. Leech (1981) says, basing his view on Booth’s
(1974) ideas that irony represents some kind of ‘secret
communion’ between the author and the reader. In case that
such communion is undermined, then it is to be the author’s
inability to bring the reader in line with him, and not the reader’s
deficiency to comprehend the values presented by the author.
Irony which represents contrasts in values within the framework
of two different viewpoints could take place either in one sentence
or in a comprehensive work. To depict the heroes and their
companions with these changes in their characters, the author has
employed ironic devices in his work to illuminate it. The
importance of employing ironic techniques is to set up two
opposite meanings for reinforcing the style and for urging the
readers to understand properly the characters’ behavior.
Fielding’s Tom Jones, which is built on satire, tackles also two
important concepts namely, charity and chastity, and it is through
connotations of meaning that the author makes it difficult for the
readers to make a simple judgment and thus complications arise
for the evaluation of characters. Some puzzling questions are set
up; do mercy, compassion and forgiveness contradict justice or
not? But whether they contradict justice or whether they do not,
are they regarded as virtues or vices? Do mercy, compassion, and
forgiveness cause harm or reconcile? The problem is incorporated
in the fact that the Christian religious doctrine asks for
forgiveness, while the laws of justice ask for punishment; a
culprit should get his deserts. The problem is also incorporated in
the fact that it is difficult to know which cases deserve forgiveness
and compassion and which do not. Those who wish to be
charitable with either encourage vice and infringe the laws of
justice or fulfil the laws of justice and condemn others. In both
cases, no assertions of judging correctly are underscored as long
as the evidence is not sufficient to communicate the truth. A
judge has to avoid hasty judgment as long as judgment constitutes
a major significance. He has to judge not only in accordance with
the laws of justice but also in accordance with the laws of the
religious doctrine.
Finally, Hume (2010, p. 260) made it clear that if we are trying
to make sense of literature as it was written in the middle of the
eighteenth century, we have to understand that most authors—
Fielding prominent among them—genuinely wanted to change
the thinking and behaviour of their readers. They attempted to
influence specific attitudes and actions relative to particular
events, persons, and ideas, as well as more general loyalties. They
sought to persuade—in personal, moral, and political terms.
Battestin (1989) concurred in finding Fielding “fundamentally a
moralist”, but he insisted that “what is most memorable about
Fielding is not his morality or his religion, but his comedy—the
warm breath of laughter that animates his fiction”. Fielding’s
writing is didactic but it is not preaching and there is a major
difference. Fielding unquestionably has “designs” upon the
reader: he almost always writes with conscious instructional
purpose, not just for entertainment. He presents us with
“realistic” lives and characters—realistic in his terms, not in
ours—and he means us to sympathize, criticize, enjoy, and
9
ARTICLE HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-021-00849-z
ultimately judge. Fielding has enormous bounce and humour and
high spirits, but he is a profoundly didactic writer.
Fielding’s characters in Tom Jones. The demonstration of
characters is a two-edged weapon; it gives the narrator the free-
dom to expose specific moral or ethical considerations, in addi-
tion to expressing implications and restraining information,
which affect the judgement of the reader. Actions and situations
also contribute to defining the nature of certain concepts, such as
charity and chastity. Fielding’s characters are considered flat or,
that is, static that they have no ‘convincing inner life’. They do
not change or enhance the course of events of the story. Fielding
seems to be a close associate to Aristotle and Horace, as regards
the flatness of characters. He proclaims that actions: “Should be
likely for the very actors and characters themselves to have per-
formed; for what may be only wonderful and surprising in one
man, may become improbable, or indeed impossible, when
related to another … This requisite is what dramatic critics cell
conservation of character, and it requires a very extraordinary
degree of judgement” (Fielding’s Tom Jones, BK viii, Ch. 1,
p. 366).
Fielding is less inclined to describe the psychology of the
characters but rather the qualities and peculiarities of them.
Sometimes flat characters are described in a way which could not
be mistakenly understood. For instance, it is stated that
“Allworthy was, and will here after appear to be, absolutely
innocent of any criminal intention whatever, ‘which is one way
describing an aspect of Allworthy’s character to be fully perceived
by the reader”. In other cases, flat characters add complications to
the reader’s response, such as those described as ‘notorious
rogues’ or ‘abandoned jades’, because in these cases, it is the
reader’s assumption of the qualities of the characters that is
subject to change. Obviously, flat characters do not change or
develop but rather it is the reader’s perception of them that
changes. Early in the book, the narrator makes fun of epithets
given to persons, in accordance to one’s needs. On blaming Jenny
Jones for having a bastard son, she is described by Mrs. Deborah
Wilkins as "a very sober girl” and by the housekeeper as an
“audacious strumpet”. Bridget on the other hand, states that she is
one of those "good, honest, plain girl(s)" who are deceived by
wicked men. Despite, Wilkins’ previous condemnation of Jenny’s
attitude, she agrees with her mistress in her characterization.
Referring to epithets to characterize the nature of persons, serves
as a means of measurement and judgment. Sometimes the public
judgment aligns that of the narrator, as is the case when Bilfil
exposes the illicit catch incident of Tom and Black George?:
“When this story became public, many people differed from
Square and Thwackum in judging the conduct of the two lads on
the occasion. Master Bilfil was generally called a sneaking rascal, a
poor-spirited wretch; with other epithets of the like kind; whilst
Tom was honoured with the appellations of a brave lad, a jolly
dog and an honest fellow” (Fielding’s Tom Jones, BK 111, Ch. 5,
p. 134).
A different evaluation of the public is suggested later and it is
Sophia’s perception which maintains that "To say the truth,
Sophia, when very young, discerned that Tom, though an idle,
thoughtless, rattling rascal, was no-body’s enemy but his own and
that Master Bilfil, though a prudent, discreet, sober, young
gentleman, was at the same time, strongly attached to the interest
only of one single person; and who that single person was, the
reader will be able to divine without any assistance of ours"
(Fielding’s Tom Jones, BK iv, Ch. 5, p. 162). Epithets in the above-
mentioned quotation are made obvious through inherent irony.
Epithets also mirror the evaluation of the community. Tom at the
age of twenty is called a "pretty fellow among the woman in the
10 HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | (2021)8:167 | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-021-00849-z
neighborhood; Allworthy when he dismisses Tom from his
household is an "inhuman father"; Square is "what is called a jolly
fellow or a widow’s man”. These epithets give the reader
information which aids him in attempting judgment. Refraining
from giving complete information about the characters evokes
not only misconception among the characters themselves, but
also misunderstanding about the characters in the reader’s eyes.
This is the case of Jenny Jones or Mrs. Waters. Her character is a
little bit conserved as long as, it is not completely unfolded as
Allworthy’s or Tom’s. Actions undertaken by the character’s work
consistently with their natures. Black George, for example,
attempts to take possession of the five-hundred-pound note
extended from Allworthy to Tom when banished from
Allworthy’s house. When Black George has met Tom after being
dismissed, he is anxious lest Tom asks to borrow some money
although "he had … amassed a pretty good sum, in Mr. Western’s
service”. In a further, situation, he gives Tom a sum of money
amounting to sixteen guineas, sent by Sophia to him, because if
he attempts to pocket the sum as he has done in the previous case,
the matter will be unfolded; thus "by the friendly aid of fear,
conscience obtained a complete victory in the mind of Black
George”. George’s ingratitude to Tom is apparent, although Tom
in return attempts to save his family from starvation.
In a further situation, the reader as much as Tom doubts
George’s behaviour on meeting Partridge in London and knowing
that Bilfil is coming to town in pursuit of Sophia to marry her.
Partridge in his course of conversation with George, hints at
Tom’s relationship with Bellaston and when Tom accuses
Partridge of’ betraying him, he confirms George’s loyalty: "I can
assure you, George is sincerely your friend, and wished Mr. Bilfil
at the devil more than once; nay, he said he would do anything in
his power upon earth to serve you” (Fielding’s Tom Jones, BK xv,
Ch. 12, p. 737). Partridge seems to know little about George in
comparison either with Tom or with the reader. George appears
in a different air, near the end of the book. The reader seems to
forgive him from his previous lapses, as when Tom has been
imprisoned and George has been acquainted with reports among
the Westerns, that Tom is about to be hanged; George appears of
a “a compassionate disposition”, rapidly offers services and
money to Tom and quickly brings news about Sophia to Tom.
Empson is puzzled by such narrative shift: “No doubt we are to
believe the details, but Fielding still feels free, … to give a different
picture of the man’s character at the other end of the novel; I take
it be refused to believe that the "inside" of a person’s mind … is
much use for telling you the reel source of his motives” (Empson,
1982, p. 135).
It is only through full cognizance of the inside of a person’s
mind, that one is being acquainted with that person’s motives.
The theme of the novel, however, suggests that the outward
appearance of a person could lead to delusion and it is the
prudence and the acute insight of the reader that unravel
connotations. It is through reduced information that the reader
makes evaluation; that is why Black George is seen in two
contradictory extremes in the reader’s eyes. Therefore, it is not
the character of George, which changes but rather the reader’s
evaluation in the light of the given information that changes.
Partridge is also introduced as flat character; at first he is seen as a
learned, good-natured and a successful school master; “... tho’ this
poor men had undertaken a profession to which learning must be
allowed necessary, this was the least of his commendations"
(Fielding’s Tom Jones, BK, 11, p. 91). The last sentence in the
quotation maintains inherent meaning, either learning is among
other professions that are worthy of commendation or his
learning is terribly ranked. This irony, of course, does not reflect
directly the narrator’s view of Partridge. A little bit later, he is
seen afraid of his wife. His motives when the reader has met him
HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-021-00849-z
at Hambrook presents him in a different view, he wishes to
accompany Tom in his military pursuit, in which, he sees an
opportunity to persuade Tom to come back home in order to gain
a reward from Allworthy. Later his cowardice is reaffirmed, when
he is afraid to take part in the battle between Tom and
Northerton to rescue Mrs. Waters. He is seen shivering on his
knees, afraid of being shot by the highwayman. He is also afraid
of a ghost, which has been participating in the performance of
Hamlet.
A different presentation of Partridge is celebrated, suggesting
that his probity and adherence to moral codes are not so far
underscored. This presentation is maintained when he offers to
borrow two horses from an inn, "now as the honesty of Partridge
was equal to his understanding, and both dealt only in small
matters, he would never have attempted a roguery of this kind,
had he not imagined it altogether safe". In spite of Partridge’s
early presentation in the book, he is revealed to be neither honest,
nor charitable, in addition to being a coward and an opportunist,
who sees that accompanying Tom to convince him to return
home, is a chance to win a reward from Mr. Allworthy. When
Partridge realizes in London that Tom has entirely no money, he
urges him to break his relationship with Sophia and return to
Allworthy. Such an attitude does not suggest his selfish motives,
as much as his good nature: “… that Partridge, among whose
vices ill-nature or hardness of heart were not numbered, burst
into tears; and after swearing he would not quit him in his
distress, he began with the most earnest entreaties to urge his
return home. "For Heaven’s sake, sir’, says he, ’do but consider …
How is it possible you can live in this town without money? Do,
what you will, sir, or go wherever you please, I am resolved not to
desert” (Fielding’s Tom Jones, BK XIII, Ch. 6, p. 629).
Just as it is revealed late in the book that Black George has a
"compassionate disposition", it is the same, that Partridge is not
ill-natured or hard-hearted, but good natured as was proposed by
the narrator, early in the book. The scenes, in which Partridge
appears, shed no light on his good nature, as when he rejects to
give a shilling to a lame beggar. He seems to be interested in
financial affairs. He is desirous to know the amount of money
given to Tom by Allworthy, and he is less inclined to extend his
own money to Tom in an attempt, either to impel Tom to use
Sophia’s bank note or return home. A distinguishing feature of
Partridge’s character is feelings of devoted attachment and
affection to Tom. He insists to keep by Tom’s side, not merely
for reasons of self-interest.
Described as ‘faithful servant’, Partridge was greatly frightened
at not hearing from his master so long, when Tom has been put
in jail for wounding Fitzpatrick. The narrator’s earlier definition
of Partridge and the reader’s evaluation of him are discovered to
be both inadequate. Partridge’s dishonesty is rebuked in the
reader’s eyes, yet it is only in one instance that his dishonesty is
praised; when he attempts to conceal the truth from Allworthy
lest he knows that Tom and his mother have committed incest
ignorantly. The label that suggests Partridge to be an ‘honest
fellow’ does not strictly speaking suggest that he is honest, nor
does it indicates him to be dishonest. Each case has its own
justifications. The epithet ‘honest fellow’ resembles that given in
the introduction, that he is ‘one of the best-natured fellows in the
world. The context emphasizes the opinion of the world rather
than that of the narrator. The character of Partridge is displayed,
to be neither so good, nor so bad. In both the cases of Partridge
and Black George, there are inconsistencies; the characters are
presented in a certain view, contrasted a little bit later by another
appearance. However, the narrator aims at concealing informa-
tion which influences the reader’s judgment, and in the meantime
exhibits new evidence which destablizes the reader’s former
response, suggesting inadequacy.
HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | (2021)8:167 | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-021-00849-z
ARTICLE
Nightingale who appears at the very end of the book is
introduced as one of those "men of wit and pleasure about town",
who devote their more serious hours to criticizing new plays,
writing love poems, gaming, hack-writing and considering of
methods to bribe a corporation"· The narrator confirms that he
was a modern fine gentleman "only … by imitation, and meant by
nature for a much better character". When the reader next meets
him he is presented in a different air, seems to be a niggard.
When Tom is acquainted with the terrible situation of Mrs. Miller
′s cousins, he offers fifty pounds to relieve their distress, while
Nightingale, not acquainted with Tom’s offer, states, "I will give
them a guinea with all my heart”.
Nightingale’s reluctance to extend money seems natural rather
than deviation from the normal measure. The narrator points out
that, there are those who consider charity something which
deserves reward or praise, whatever the quantity of donation is,
while, there are others who consider charity a duty which is either
to be perfectly done or not at all. The narrator comments upon
Nightingale’s character: “This Nightingale, of whom we shall be
presently obliged to say a little more, was in the ordinary
transactions of life of a man of strict honour, … he was even here
as void of principle as gentleman sometimes are; … but it is
certain he had been guilty of some indefensible treachery to
women, and had in a certain mystery called making love,
practiced many deceits which if he had used in trade he would
have been counted the greatest villain upon earth” (Fielding’s
Tom Jones, BK XIV, Ch. 4, p. 669).
Many ideas arise in the reader’s mind as regards Nightingale’s
character; “a man of strict honour”, “the greatest villain upon
earth”’ “void of principle” and guilty of “indefensible treachery to
women”. “He intends to change his place of residence without
taking leave from Nancy and he declares that he is innocent of
any approaches to the girl, asserting to Tom, “what, do you
suppose”, that we have a bed together?” Shortly, afterwards, it has
been discovered that he has been indeed in bed with Nancy and
has deserted her pregnant with his child. Tom’s persuasive
arguments to Nightingale, probably have worked to stricken his
conscience and to give him the chance to marry his own whore.
Nightingale having his feelings awakened by Tom’s eloquence,
consequently declares his marriage with Nancy. Nightingale, has
committed “indefensible” crimes with women, is not viewed in an
incredible air to do so again. After being seen selfish, callous and
degraded in the reader’s eyes. Nightingale is redeemed by
conciliating his affair with Nancy. Irony is suggested in a phrase
proclaiming Nightingale “worthy young man”? If Nightingale is
to be worthy, it is for his endeavors to collect evidence that will
free Tom from prison and if he is ranked unworthy, it is for the
fact that when the evidence goes against Tom, he begins to
suspect Tom’s story, telling him ’if you disguise anything to us;
you will only be an enemy to yourself”.
The concept of “chastity”. The concept of chastity seems to be
baffling in examination as much as the concept of charity. The
narrator is aware to differentiate love from lust, thus allowing the
reader to excuse the beahviour of some characters and denounce
the behavior of others. Empson proposes that the reader may:
“get to the point of reading Tom Jones with fascinated curiosity,
baffled to make out what (the narrator) really does think about …
(among other things) the Christian command of chastity”
(Empson, 1982, p. 124).
The narrator exploresthe wide meaning of love and gives an
answer to those who ignore the existence of love. The difference
between the narrator’s own view of love and the meaning
imposed on the word by custom is explored: “… what is
commonly called love, namely the desire of satisfying a voracious
appetite with a certain quantity of delicate white human flesh, is
11
ARTICLE HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-021-00849-z
by no means that passion for which I here contend. This is indeed
more properly hunger; and as no glutton is ashamed to apply the
word love to his appetite, and to say he loves such and such
dishes, so may the lover of this kind … say, he hungers after such
and such women” (Fielding’s Tom Jones, BK VI, Ch. 1, p. 252).
The narrator adds that love is opposed to hunger and is part and
parcel of benevolence. The pure love is that which contributes to
the happiness of others, and which is “sweetened by the assistance
of amorous desires”. Thus love is independent of sexual desires
which are associated with hunger or more appetite. Sometimes,
sexual desires become a part of love and thus they are excusable;
but when they become a part of hunger or more appetite, they
arouse contempt. The distinction between love and is set out in
the example of Tom’s love for Molly Seagrim, in comparison with
his love for Sophia. Tom’s love of Molly Seagrim is extended from
his compassion for the situation of her family and from his
gratitude for her interest in him in addition to his desire for her
person. Tom seems to act neither for the mere appetite nor for
exact love, which becomes clear when being aware of Sophia’s
affection for him. It is Tom’s behavior towards Sophia and Molly
which is to be investigated for determining the definition of love.
Molly’s love of Tom is not of that kind which could give him any
feeling of discomfort at her faithlessness. Meanwhile, his love for
Sophia is marked with “unbound passions”.
Although Tom’s emotions are wholly dedicated to Sophia and
his affections for Molly are not greatly marked, yet he allows
himself to be once again seduced by her, which is no more than a
consolation for his quarrel with Bilfil and being drunk, and lonely
for Sophia. He hardly loves Molly than she loves him: “Jones
probably thought one women better than none, and Molly as
probably imagined two men to be better than one” (Fielding’s
Tom Jones, BK V, Ch. X, p. 240). Jones retires into the bushes
with Molly because one woman is better than none. Rawson
suggests that Tom’s love is the outcome of “appetite alone”. The
effects of appetite seem to align those of benevolence or pure love.
The esteem and gratitude, Tom cherishes for both Molly and
Sophia are the effect of his attraction to them. Attraction seems to
encourage benevolence rather than the latter promotes the
former, as being suggested by the essay on love. If love is
incorporated with emotions which aim at the happiness of others,
then Tom loves both Molly and Sophia. Molly is no more than a
whore, like those who marry men whom they dislike and abhor,
only for their fortunes. Fielding calls that kind of marriage ‘legal
prostitution for hire’. Molly’s plan to deceive Tom by convincing
him that he is the father of her bastard son, simply proceeds from
her fear of losing her generous lover (Rawson, 1959, pp.
400–404). There are two kinds of appetite that are noteworthy;
appetite that satisfies itself at any rate and appetite that could be
kept under control when its satisfaction would probably cause the
misery of others. Tom at the age of sixteen, when he casts eyes of
affection on Molly, has been controlled by his principles from
pursuing her: “To debauch a young woman, however low her
condition was, appeared to him a very heinous crime” (Fielding’s
Tom Jones, BK IV, Ch. VI, p. 169).
There are some people who ignore the existence of love in the
human heart and in the meantime, they are incapable of
understanding benevolence, since they are only capable of mere
appetite. “And love probably may, in your opinion, very greatly
resemble a dish of soup”. Mrs. Water’s affection for Tom ranks
her among those group of people: “… She was in love, according
to the present universally received sense of that phrase, by which
love is applied indiscriminately to the desirable objects of all our
passions, appetites, and senses, and is understood to be that
preference which we give to one kind of food rather than to
another” (Fielding’s Tom Jones, BK IX, Ch. V, p. 454). Later on
the narrator presents Mrs. Waters in a different view, after being
12 HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | (2021)8:167 | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-021-00849-z
rescued by Tom from Ensign Northerton: “women to their glory
be it spoken, are more generally capable of that violent and
apparently disinterested passion of love, which seeks only the
good of its object, than men. Mrs. Waters, therefore, was no
sooner apprised of the danger to which her lover was exposed,
then she lost every consideration besides that of his safety”
(Fielding’s Tom Jones, BK IX, Ch VII, p. 463). It is uneasy to bring
to consistency, Mrs. Waters’ goodness and her sexual freedom.
She is Captain Waters’ wife and has initiated a close acquaintance
with Ensign Northerton, which has worked for the defamation of
her reputation. Nothing dictates her conscience as long as, what
satisfies her pleasures, does not harm anybody. Her benevolence
which has been concealed, is unearthed when Tom is put in jail
for wounding Fitzparick, with whom Mrs. Waters has kept
company since their departure from Upton. Patridge realizes that
Mrs. Waters resembles Benny Joes, as both see it natural to
embark upon incest. Yet, it is the discovery that Benny and Mrs.
Waters are the same person that adds irony to the matter. It is
underlined that Allworthy’s condemnation of Jenny Jones has
been for her inability to preserve her chastity. “The heinous
nature of this offence must be sufficiently apparent to every
Christian inasmuch as it is committed in defiance of the laws of
our religion, and of the express commands of Him who founded
that religion” (Fielding’s Tom Jones, BK 1, Ch. VII, p. 66).
The above mentioned extract includes the same lesson delivered
to Jones when it has been hinted that he is the father of Jenny’s
bastard son. Despite, the exhortation and the moral lesson given by
Allworthy to Tom and Jenny, neither of them seems to obey the
exhortation nor respond to the lesson. Mrs. Waters, who has been
described early in the novel as a ‘slut’ proves to be a truly
benevolent character. Her sexual freedom which unquestionably lay
emphasis for denouncing her, seems, after all, one of the elements
which underscore her sympathetic nature and benevolence. The
man to whom she owes happiness at Upton, is the men to whom
she wishes happiness in the arms of another woman. Meanwhile,
appetite is only blameworthy, when it impels one to sacrifice
another’s happiness to one’s own. Bilfil’s appetites which are, “the
common property of all animals” represent such aspect. What is
subject to condemnation, is Bilfil’s sexual pursuit to Sophia which is
heightened by her intense dislike of him, in addition to his thought
of keeping Sophia away from Tom as a revenge on Tom’s side,
which is just a means of separating the two lovers. Tom, in the
meantime, whose animal spirits are somewhat stronger than Bilfil’s,
vows to “sacrifice everything to the possession of my Sophia but
Sophia herself”. Speaking with Nightingale, Tom points out that
chastity is not among his virtues and he admits “I have been guilty
with women, I own it, but am not conscious that I have ever injured
any-nor would I, to procure pleasure to myself, be knowingly the
cause of misery to any human being”. Clearly, Bilfil’s attempt to
establish his own happiness depends upon his desire to undermine
the happiness of others, while, Tom’s happiness could not be built
by demolishing the happiness of others or causing misery to them.
Remarkably, Lord Fellamar’s tender feelings towards Sophia shares
Bilfil’s emotions. His affections towards Sophia also share the
characterization of Tom’s feelings towards Molly, “the nobleman …
might now without any great impropriety, be said to be actually in
love with (Sophia)”. Apart from Sophia’s physical charms, Lord
Fellamar states to Lady Bellaston, “I should swear she had been bred
in a court; for besides her beauty, I never saw anything so genteel, so
sensible, so polite” (Fielding’s Tom Jones, BK XV, Ch. 2, p. 698).
A further distinction between Tom’s feeling and those of the
nobleman, Fellamar, is that Tom’s life when discovering Sophia’s
passion becomes “a constant struggle between honour and
inclination”, while Fellamar’s life becomes a struggle between
‘honour and appetite’. Fellamar, at the beginning attempts to
prove the success of honour, by approaching. Lady Bellaston and
HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-021-00849-z
by rejecting the idea of rape, but when he is being accused by
Lady Bellaston of lacking courage, he attempts rape as a point of
honour and to prove himself a “man of spirit”. Building his
opinion on a false view of honour, Fellamar continues his
relationship with Bellaston, because he feels himself owing much
to her kindness. In this connection, Tom’s binding emotions with
Sophia, have resulted in reformation and wisdom: “The first
moment of hope that my Sophia might be my wife, taught it me
at once; and all the rest of her sex from that moment became as
little the objects of desire to my sense, as of passion to my heart”
(Fielding’s Tom Jones, BK XVIII, Ch. XII, p. 866). Tom’s love
affair with all amours have something to do with the heart,
including Lady Bellaston for she has secured him against
starvation. Thus it is the calibration of the quantity of love,
neither the kind of love, that strikes a difference between these
amours and Tom’s passion for Sophia. Chastity seems to suggest
“rigid virtue” or excessive modesty incorporated under prudery.
Chastity seems to be meaningless as being suggested by Fielding.
Molly despite her unchastity seems to be likeable. Square, on the
other hand, being an advocator of moral lessons, is degraded in
the eyes of the reader for working in the opposite side to his
advocacy and proving his weakness on attempting a sexual
relationship with Molly. Moreover, Fellamar attempts rape, only
to prove his manhood rather than to satisfy an appetite. Jonny
Jones is seen in a view less strict than that presented by Allworthy.
The concept of “charity”. In the early chapter in Tom Jones,
Fielding’s definition of charity aligns that which he has initiated
in Joseph Andrews, indicating that deeds are underlined rather
than dispositions. In the dialogue between Mr. Allworthy and
Captain Bilfil, Bridget’s husband, who has known that Partridge is
Tom’s father, it seems that the Captain attempts to decrease
Allworthy’s tender feelings towards the child, whom he regards a
rival in his quest for Allworthy’s fortune. He capitalizes on the
chance for doing so through his discussion on the nature of
charity: “The Christian religion, she said, was instituted for much
nobler purposes than to enforce a lesson which many heathen
philosophers had taught us long before … (he said) … a virtue
much higher, and more extensive in its nature, than a pitiful
distribution of alms, which … could never reach many; whereas
charity, in the other and truer sense, might be extended to all
mankind” (Fielding’s Tom Jones, BK II, Ch. V, p. 101). Bilfil
further illustrates that the man who does help others materially is
merely encouraging vice to triumph over virtue, as long as such
aid is extended to those who do not deserve it. It is notably that
Bilfil is talking about Partridge. Allworthy states that his ideas of
charity “was interpreted to consist in action, and that giving alms
constituted at least one branch of that virtue”. According to
Allworthy, charity is associated with the way that one diminishes
the pressure of distress of another person, and it is by virtue of
charity that “we condescend to share some part of them by giving
what even our own necessities cannot well spare”. Allworthy
proclaims that a small number of cases which let man fall a prey
to ingratitude from others or harden his heart against the distress
of others cannot destabilize a truly good man from extending
generosity to others, as long as “nothing less than a persuasion of
universal depravity can look up the charity of a good man and
‘surely it unfair to argue such universal depravity from a few
vicious individuals” (Fielding’s Tom Jones, p. 103).
Fielding also advocates that charity consists in the relief of
suffering, which comes in line with the doctrines of the low-
church. Although, the narrator assert that Allworthy is entitled to
this virtue namely, charity, and despite the fact that, he fulfills his
principles on an accurate basis, yet he is not sufficiently ranked as
charitable as it first appears in the reader’s mind. There are cases
which reveal Mr. Allworthy less than completely generous. The
HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | (2021)8:167 | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-021-00849-z
ARTICLE
first case is that which unfolds in the way he deals with Partridge.
Being informed by Captain Bilfil about some aspects of
Partridge’s paternity, Mr. Allworthy questions Deborah Walkins
who affirms the subject of debate. In a further stance, Partridge is
proved guilty in the eyes of Mr. Allworthy despite Partridge’s
affirmation of his innocence. Mr. Allworthy is convinced by the
indictment launched against Partridge by his wicked and wild
wife concerning the fact; that Partridge is the father of one of the
two bastards brought by Jenny Jones and thus, he decides to
postpone judgment until Jenny can appear as a witness. On being
informed that Jenny ‘had left her habitation a few days before in
company with a recruiting officer’, Allworthy declares that she is
no better than a "slut" whose word is not to be trusted and points
out that if she says that truth then: “She must have confirmed
what so many circumstances, together with his own confession,
and the Declaration of his wife, that she had caught her husband
in the act, did sufficiently prove” (Fielding’s Tom Jones, BK II, Ch.
VI, p. 107). According to such circumstances Partridge and his
wife are deprived of much of their income which has been taken
from their school. Allworthy has not shown callousness but rather
intends to supply them with enough money upon which they
could be able to subsist, yet on the death of Partridge’s wife, he
has left the country threatened with the danger of starving. The
next time the reader meets Partridge is when Tom has
encountered him at an inn working as a barber. The fate of
Partridge has been unknown for the reader within a number of
intervening years, until it is only unraveled in the end of the story.
A wicked and vengeful neighbour has footmarks for foiling
Partridge’s expected success of another school and for being sent
to jail for seven years, which are both attributed to the fact that
Partridge’s pig has intruded into that man’s property. The
magistrate, Allworthy, seems less interested in that issue in
comparison with his anxiety to discover the true parentage of
Tom, which is a mark of causal injustice. “Well”, says Allworthy,
‘pass that over till your return to England” (Fielding’s Tom Jones,
BK. XVIII, Ch. VI, p. 833).
The nature of Allworthy’s compassion is also examined in the
way he handles the issue of Black George. Tom has been seized in
company with another man caught while venturing illicitly in
squire Western’s property and on being beaten mercilessly by
Thwackum to learn the name of his companion, he is forced to
divulge such secret and in that account Allworthy has dismissed
the gamekeeper from his service. The justice of this sentence is
enhanced by the information that “Mr. Allworthy had given the
fellow strict orders on pain of forfeiting his place, never to
trespasses on any of his neighbours” (Fielding’s Tom Jones, BK
III, Ch. II, p. 125). Tom assures that George’s trespass or
intrusion upon the property of squire Western is merely in
response to his request and the shooting of the Partridge is
migrated for the “covey was originally sprung in Mr. Allworthy’s
own Manor”. As a result of George’s dismissal from his service, he
and his family, like Partridge, are left to suffer from starvation, it
is only due to the good offices of Tom that they are rescued.
When Tom manages to acquaint Allworthy of the miserable
conditions of the poor family, Allworthy has given the mother “a
couple of Guinee” to clothe her children and is convinced by
Tom, that he has to think of any means, by virtue of which the
family could subsist. Allworthy’s good offices are demolished on
being informed by Bilfil that the gamekeeper has illegally killed a
hare belonging to Western to feed his family. Bilfil exaggerates
George’s transgression to Allworthy: “Bilfil … considerably
altered the story; for he said that George had wired hares. These
alterations might probably have been set right, had not Master
Bilfil unluckily insisted on a promise of secrecy from Mr.
Allworthy, before he revealed the matter to him; but by that
means the poor gamekeeper was condemned without having an
13
ARTICLE HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-021-00849-z
opportunity to defend himself” (Fielding’s Tom Jones, BK. III, Ch.
X, p. 148).
Once again Allworthy punishes a man on the basis of rumours
and hearsay “… there is no zeal blinder … against offenders” (p.
148). If the situation comments on Allworthy’s attitude, it also
reveals Bilfil’s malice. The third case which unravel that
Allworthy’s compassion is controlled by his sense of justice, is
his decision to turn Tom away. Such a horrible deed undertaken
by Allworthy is the culmination of suspicions that Tom intends to
steal Sophia from Bilfil, which are built on two extremes, namely,
Squire Western’s notice of Sophia’s faint in Tom’s arms and Mrs.
Western’s infringement of Sophia’s trust. In addition to that Bilfil
out of his malice and ill-intentioned purpose fabricates stories on
Tom to distort his image before Allworthy. He has accused him of
drinking intoxications during Allworthy’s illness and in the
meantime, he has claimed that Thwackum has discovered him in
the bushes "engaged with a wench in a manner not fit to be
mentioned” (Fielding’s Tom Jones, BK. VI, Ch. X, p. 285).
Allworthy maintains that man is guilty until proven innocent,
and as long as Tom has been really drinking when he received the
news of Allworthy’s recovery, followed by the news of Bridget’s
death, he cannot conceal or deny the indictment levelled against
him. Allworthy tells Tom, “that unless he could clear himself of
the charge, he was resolved to banish him from his sight forever”
(Fielding’s Tom Jones, p. 286). He further illustrates that he has to
act, as justice impels him to: “The world, who have already
censured the regard I have shewn for you, may think, with some
colour at least of justice, that I connive at so base and barbarous
on action … indeed equal to your crimes, and I can think myself
justifiable in what I am now going to bestow on you” (Fielding’s
Tom Jones, BK. VI, Ch. XI, p. 287).
Allworthy afterwards dismisses Tom with a sum of money to
start a new livelihood. The narrator comments on Allworthy’s
decision: “The Reader must be very weak, if, when he considers
the light in which Jones then appeared to Mr. Allworthy, he
should blame the rigour of his sentence. And yet all the
neighbourhood, either from this weakness, or from some worse
motive, condemned this justice and severity as the highest
cruelty” (Fielding’s Tom Jones, p. 288). The term "weak" or
"weakness" in the above mentioned passage becomes associated
with compassion. This, it is the neighbours’ compassion which
impels them to exaggerate Allworthy’s cruelty towards Tom,
disregarding to mention that he has been sent with five hundred
pounds. The reader should not denounce Allworthy’s decision as
much as he has to find out reasons behind which he is forced to
embark upon this step. First of all, Jones appears in a very bad
position, and unfortunately the evidence is against him, thus, the
decision for punishing him could not be rejected. On examining
these three incidents, it is revealed that Allworthy’s character is
characterized with both a charitable nature and a sense of justice.
Although, sometimes he attempts hasty conclusions and gives
an ear to hearsay and rumours, yet it is out of fear to encourage
vice which projects him to such an attitude. It seems in the eyes of
Allworthy, that it is better to give alms than to give one a good
opinion. Being strict in judgement, followed by a decision to
supply the family of the culprit with money to subsist for their life
is merely to bring Allworthy’s conscience to comfort and it is not
an overall sign of his charitable nature. It is worthy to note, that,
Bilfil’s rejection to the idea of charity, which according to his own
view is a means to assist the wicked and to allow vice to triumph
over virtue, has actually influenced Allworthy’s opinion and has
urged him to treat Partridge, Tom and George on strict and
severe bases. As long as, Allworthy sees that the three men he
judges are unquestionably guilty, he regards it immoral to release
them without punishment. Along with Allworthy’s complete
devotion to severe the basis of justice, there is a flaw in his
14 HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | (2021)8:167 | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-021-00849-z
character in my own view which makes him fall as a prey to
deception from clever hypocritical and ostensible characters such
as Bilfil who has managed to undermine Allworthy’s benevolent
impulses.
Judgement which is accompanied by mercy and compassion
seems to be a difficulty for Fielding. Fielding sees to give a defense
of Allworthy: “… the mercy may appear more amiable in a
magistrate, severity is a more wholesome virtue; nay severity to an
individual may, perhaps, be in the end the greatest mercy, not only
to the public in general … but to many individuals’’. A distinction
is also drawn by Fielding as regards “the passions of the man” and
the "principles of the magistrate”, ’indicating that the latter should
take priority over the former in cases of villainy. Probing the
characters of Tom end Allworthy as judges is also the focus of
excavation. The significant case of Tom’s judgement is his meeting
with the highwayman who has tried to rob him and Partridge, and
on investigating his circumstances, it is unearthed that he is being
stript out of his livery and it is the dire need to provide for his
almost dead and starving family which forces him to attempt
robbery. The highwayman suggests to take Tom to his house to
prove the veracity of his story and he has highly agreed when Tom
has accompanied him, that Tom no longer doubts him. Tom
extends the poor man a couple of guineas as soon as he has felt
pity for him. Tom giving the highwayman a sum of money to
provide for his family, seems to follow the example of Allworthy
giving Black George the same amount of money to serve his
family. Similarity worked out by the attitudes of both Allworthy
and Tom as regards their financial aid to the poor, seems to be
disparity in their disposal, as the former provides money which is
excessive to his needs, the latter grants money of which he is in
dire need. Neither of these cases prove the extent of the culprit’s
guilt, yet the judges are ruled by different dispositions.
The narrator seems to probe Tom’s aid to the poor within the
context of charity: “Our readers will probably be divided in their
opinions concerning the action (i.e. Tom’s charitable treatment of
the highwayman. Some may applaud it perhaps as an act of
extraordinary humanity, while those of a more saturnine temper
will consider it as a want of regard to that justice which every man
owes his country” (Fielding’s Tom Jones, BK XII, Ch. XIV, p.
805). Irony is indicated in the phrase "those of a more saturnine
temper” which represents hard-hearted and callous people. Tom
seems to be encouraging a criminal, namely, the highwayman, as
long as he rejects to verify his story. Tom’s act, besides being a
sign of a compassionate nature is also a mark of disregard to the
strict laws of justice. Condemning or applauding such an act,
mainly depends on one’s own view whether to stand by the side
of the society or the individual.
On drawing up a comparison between Allworthy and Tom, it is
clear that Allworthy’s handling of the matters is different from
Tom, but this is due to the fact that he is being a magistrate
shouldering a responsibility which is not borne by Tom. It is the
duty of Allworthy to settle or resolve his judgment for the benefit
of the society and it is his zeal for justice which does not allow his
benevolent impulses to affect his judgment. Two further attitudes
reflect the different perspectives of Tom and Allworthy. The first
mirrors Tom’s extreme forgiveness which is seen by Allworthy as
“mistaken mercy”. When Allworthy is acquainted with Bilfil’s evil
deeds, it is Tom, the victim of Bilfil’s attempts, who initiates to
reconcile between Allworthy and Bilfil. Tom says: “Let me
beseech you; sir, to do nothing by him in the present height of
your anger. Consider my dear uncle, I was not myself condemned
unheard” (Fielding’s Tom Jones, BK XVIII, Ch. XI, p. 859).
Allworthy’s attitude towards Bilfil is hardened and not reconciled
by Tom’s forgiveness: “… do not flatter him with any hopes of my
forgiveness; for I shall never forgive villainy farther than my
religion obliges” (Fielding’s Tom Jones, p. 861). Tom also
HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-021-00849-z
attempts to extend monetary aid to Bilfil and promises to help
him to be reconciled with Allworthy. It is worth pointing out, that
Allworthy is willing to forgive, only in fulfilment of the religious
principles, while Tom who is really harmed by Bilfil, is ready to
help and most charitable from the depth of his heart. The second
attitude is marked by Tom’s shock at the news of Black George’s
theft of the sum of money which Allworthy has given Tom on his
departure. Tom for the second time shows no rancour, indicating
that George has extended an amount of the sum to him, yet
Allworthy could not bear that, saying that it is too much: “Child,
cries Allworthy, ‘you carry this forgiving temper too far. Such
mistaken mercy is not only weakness, but borders on injustice,
and is very pernicious to society, as it encourages vice” (Fielding’s
Tom Jones, p. 862).
The concept of charity is complicated by the two above
mentioned scenes. The question is, whether mercy, compassion,
and forgiveness contradict justice or not?; Whether compassion
mercy and forgiveness are virtues or vices? or whether they cause
harm or reconcile? Tom’s attitude seems to be mostly Christian.
Although the reader admires his generous spirit, yet it is not
concluded that his ethical standard is the ultimate measure for
trespasses launched by some against others. It is right that Tom
forgives and in the meantime it is right that the culprit gets his
deserts. A pressing problem imposes itself, while the religious
doctrine asks for forgiveness, the laws of justice ask for
punishment (see Haverkate, 1990; Glucksberg, 1995; Carston,
1981; Chen, 1990; Jorgensen et al., 1984; Williams, 1984; Barbe,
1995).
A further sign of Tom’s charity, especially towards Bilfil, is his
refusal to inform Bilfil of Allworthy’s decision to dismiss him,
because in his own view, this information would be an insult
worse than Bilfil’s crimes: “fortune may tempt man of no very bad
depositions to injustice, but insults proceed only from black and
rancorous minds, and have no temptations to excuse them”
(Fielding’s Tom Jones, BK VIII, Ch. XI, p. 859). Allworthy seems
to accept Tom’s forgiveness of George, much more than his
forgiveness of Bilfil. To leave Bilfil without punishment is
mistaken mercy and pernicious to society, as long as it encourages
vice. Those who attempt to be charitable will run the risk of
encouraging vice and diverging the laws of justice. On the other
hand, if they attempt to fulfill the obligations of justice, they
might be condemning others. Thus in neither cases, they have no
confirmation of judging correctly, since the evidence is not
sufficient to convey the truth. The difficulty appears in being both
a Christian and a social man. Since judgment represents a vital
importance, a judge has to collect all information possible and be
careful of issuing hasty and rapid sentence. All people play the
role of magistrates, either judging others or being themselves
subject to judgement. A judge has to work in accordance with the
laws of the religious doctrine and the laws of man.
A political reading of Tom Jones: Fielding as a political
operative. At present, there are a number of political readings of
Tom Jones (See Campbell, 1995; Stevenson and Paulson, 2000;
Stevenson, 2005; Carlton, 1988; Brown, 1997; Downie, 2009;
Schmidgen, 1992; Shanley, 2007). Fleming (2019, p. 662) argues
that ‘by recognizing the political significance of Sophia’s muff, as
both a body part and an accessory, we can demystify Fielding’s
infamous muff jokes and appreciate their relationship to the
novel’s setting, an event grounded in decades of debate about sex
right and political right: The Jacobite Rebellion of 1745. The
London in which Fielding spent most of his life was a world of
literary and political ferment, an age of factionalism in the arts,
with the Tory Wits (Jonathan Swift, Alexander Pope, John Gay,
John Arbuthnot) allied against Colley Cibber, the poet laureate
HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | (2021)8:167 | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-021-00849-z
ARTICLE
and self-proclaimed literary spokesman for the British Isles. It was
a time, also, of great political controversy, with the ongoing
conflicts between the Tories and Jacobites about the questions of
religion and succession. These various sources, influences, and
beliefs are molded into coherent works of art through Fielding’s
narrative technique. It is through the role of the narrator that he
most clearly and successfully experiments in the methods of
teaching a moral lesson.
Muffs first appeared on the arms of eminent courtesants in
Venice in the fifteenth century, and this accessory arrived in
England, by way of France, around 1572 (Chirman-Campbell,
2013, p. 134). Since their invention, muffs have been political,
enmeshed in a nexus of capitalism, nationalism, and gender
politics. In addition to operating as a visual sign, deploying ‘muff’
as a slang term had political implications (see Emberley, 1988;
Wallace, 1997). The two dominant usages of ‘muff’ as a slang
term are: (1) ‘muff’ describes the entire genital area of a woman or
(2) when coupled with other objects, it describes the penetration
of a vagina. In both, the materiality of the female body and the
materiality of the accessory are conflated to produce the double
meaning (Fleming, 2019, p. 668). The muff became one of the
most popular metonyms in the period (Wallace, 1997).
In her article, “The Politics of Sophia Wester’s Muff”, Fleming
(2019, p. 659) examined Fielding’s jokes about Sophia’s muff in
Tom Jones in relation to the novel historical context: the Jacobite
Rebellion of 1745. First, she complicated earlier readings by
scholars who have argued that the government of Sofia is an
allegory for the government of the nation. Second, she traced how
the embedded it—narrative of the muff figures Sophia’s marriage
contract as an analogy for the social contact, one that considers
whether government should be decided by paternal authority or
consent of the governed. Sophia’s muff foregrounds this analogy
and the novel’s political allegory because muffs, as references to
vaginas, metonymize the body part that determined how
monarchies, money, and property were transferred. Third, she
examined how Fielding’s muff jokes directly engage with the
fundamental question posed by the Jacobite rebellions: which
family has a better right to inherit the crown, the Stuarts or the
Hanover’s?
Fleming (2019, p. 659) made it clear that ‘even though Henry
Fielding might be the most famous muff joke artist in the British
canon, scholars have been dancing around the meaning of Sophia
Western’s muff in a carefully orchestrated minuet of avoidance for
the least one hundred years. She, also, made two points clear; first,
every work of printed scholarship employs euphemisms or
circumlocutions when discussing Sophia’s muff. Second, “our
hesitation to openly discuss how Fielding repeatedly jokes about
the penetration of a women’s vagina in ‘Tom Jones’ keeps us from
seeing that each muff joke carries significant political implications.
According to Johnson (1959, p. 690), the muff is a ‘love token’
between Sophia and Tom, acting as a substitute for the other
person. De Ritter (1989, p. 44) argued that the muff was a tool
that helped Tom to monitor his behavior and ‘to devote himself
more consciously to the woman he betrayed (Sophia Gee, 2010, p.
141) described the muff as a metonym, or a “prop”, for the absent
lover in the text. Engel (2015, p. 11) wrote that Sophia’s muff
invites sexual analogies (see Glover, 2006; Keller, 2007). In this
regard, Pateman (1988, pp. 88–89) points out that when we read
Fielding’s novel, we continue to ‘separate sex—right from political
right. More specifically, Pateman (1988, p. 2) argued that the
social contract is shaped by the sexual contract. The relationship
between a man and a woman is made possible by ‘sex right’,
which is a combination of men’s ‘political right’ over women and
sexual access to their bodies. Political theorists in the seventeenth
century, according to Pateman (1988), distinguished between the
15
ARTICLE HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-021-00849-z
power of the government over a subject and the power of a
husband over his wife by arguing that ‘women’s subjection to
men was natural. In this connection, Fleming (2019, p. 661)
argues that regardless of natural subjection, women were political
actors because of their “muffs”, and the muffs women wore
wielded political influence too. Relatedly, Pateman (1988, p. 371)
points out that natural subjection was a fiction designed to
explain women’s absence from government institution: it insisted
on women’s natural incapacity for political life:
Women were incorporated into political order and not
merely excluded (or left in the ‘state nature’, but their
manner of incorporation was different from that of men
(p. 370).
Fielding relies on the double meaning of the word “muff”—
slang for genitalia—to place his marriage as social contract
analogy into the novel. Every vignette in the history of Sophia’s
muff dramatizes the question of Sophia’s consent and engages
with these competing theories of government by debating who
owns Sophia’s muff(s): Western the Jacobite, Tom the
Hanoverian, or Sophia herself. By using a metonym for sex
tight to discuss political right, Fielding broadens the contract
analogy into an allegory designed to dissuade his readers from
what he considers to be the egregious arguments of Jacobitism
(Fleming, 2019, p. 664).
As Coley (1987) points out, Fielding, as a political operative
who wrote anti-Jacobite pamphlets for the Hanoverian govern-
ment, was highly aware that Jacobites used accessories to express
their loyalty to the Stuarts. Jacobitism in England was, for the
most part, dependent on a clandestine material culture: “Material
culture seems to have been perceived by Jacobite publicists as
being more ‘real’ than abstractions: expressed in mind or print:
truth in things reflected truth in Kings. Jacobites stored their
political truth in tangible things” (Guthrie, 2013, p. 39). In Tom
Jones, Sophia’s muff refers to something other than a fashion
accessory, and it is the reference to women’s genitals that is
politically significant (Pittock (2013, p. 26). According to Fleming
(2019, p. 669), Muff jokes carry with them the legal symbolism of
property settlements, in which vaginas determined the convey-
ance of property, money, and on a grander scale, the monarchy.
Fielding’s jokes about Sophia’s muff engage with this legal
authority to convey property through their double meaning. In
the muff’s first appearance, Fielding linguistically renders it a
vagina. Sophia’s vagina, that which cannot be openly referred to
according to social convention, is “implied by” her accessory on
the page (Wall, 2006, p. 133). Fleming (2019, p. 670) argues that
Fielding employs the slang usage predicted on hands to turn the
accessory into a metonym for Sophia’s vagina. Sophia is depicted
as part thing and her muff as part person when Tom “put his
Hands into it” and “kept his Hand in”. Tom describes Sophia as
having “the prettiest Muff in the World”: his fascination with the
muff hinges on her body and her body’s legal power. Indeed, the
novel’s first muff joke consists of a man who cannot inherit
property according to common and ecclesiastical law holding a
piece of property in his hands that is a metonym for the very
thing that determines the conveyance of property. It is significant
that neither the charms of Sophia’s mind nor her beauty have an
impact on Tom, but her muff does. In addition to this narrative
purpose, Sophia’s muff fulfills a political purpose in Tom Jones.
Blackwell (2007, p. 289) argues that it—novels about shoes, coats,
banknotes, and corkscrews represent prostitutes through meto-
nymy. The embedded it—narrative of Sophia’s muff achieves a
similar effect. Fielding uses the muff to represent not the
decreasing value of courtesans’ bodies in circulation, but the value
attached to a woman’s reproductive capacity and her ability to
transfer property to the next generation.
16 HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | (2021)8:167 | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-021-00849-z
In conclusion, the linguistic gymnastics that muff jokes
perform to elicit laughter are indicative of a culture that
understands women as simultaneously persons and things. As
Fleming (2019, pp. 679–680) points out, in the eighteenth
century, muff jokes are only funny when they consciously display
and play with two different types of property: women—as—
property and accessory—as—property. Their comedy speaks to a
legal system that shifted between viewing women as persons or
things, as proprietors or as vehicles of property transfer,
depending on what was best for the court, the estate, or the
monarchy. Fielding’s muff jokes illustrate this broader political
significance, as they rely on the muff’s ability to metonymize both
types of property: women and accessory:
We, as critics, should continue to illuminate women’s
covert contributions to eighteenth century British politics,
regardless of whether they were made in a bedchamber or
on a battlefield (Fleming, 2019, p. 680).
Conclusion
Fielding has proved himself not only a successful eighteenth
century novelist, but also a master-key to the English novel at
large. His capacity as a writer proves that he has abundant
knowledge and skills not only revealed in the field of artistic
activities, but also in fields of education, social classes “high
and low people", law and religious affairs. Such skills and
knowledge have enabled him to set up a panoramic view of
English life with consummate excellence and success. Most of
the delight and success in Fielding’s Tom Jones are taken from
the power of the narrative voice; the true representation of the
English life in the eighteenth century with examples of high
and low characters, the well-formed structure of the book, the
picaresque elements and various coincidences which enhance
the plot and add to the comic features exploited in the novel.
Fielding’s insistence upon depicting affectation which stems
from hypocrisy, probably attempting to deceit and vanity,
possibly akin to ostentation is a device to expose vice and
ugliness on one hand and virtue and goodness on the other.
Such device does not only invite the reader to judge these traits
only in the characters but also to explore them in human
nature as well as in the depth of his own nature.
Tackling the concept of the point of view in a literary work,
Lang (1983) says that it deals with the extent with which the
author’s personality affects a literary composition. The author
may behave as a teller, directly addressing the reader and asking
questions. He may announce his presence through one of the
characters of the artistic activity or through an exposure of an
autobiographical experience. The author may also behave as an
objective narrator. Fielding is an intrusive author and intrusive
authors at large do not only present an artistic work but also
interpret it. Intrusive authors declare their presence directly in
an artistic formation. Fielding in Tom Jones underscores the
omniscient narration, referring to characters either by their
names or by the pronouns “he, she and they”. Fielding through
the digressive tales of the two books has managed to employ the
first person narrative viewpoint within the framework of an
exterior third person narration. It is through the omniscient
narration that the author employs an intrusive narrator who is
regarded as an authoritative capacity over the fictional world,
commenting on the characters’ behavior and attitudes.
It is through the narrative devices that an author incorporates
biographical or autobiographical narrative forms and such works
which have to do with the real world are didactic.
Arguments have been launched to differentiate between nar-
ration and description, yet it has been revealed that narration and
HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-021-00849-z
description are not discriminated and both are placed under the
genre of narrative. Through the narrative stratagems, Fielding
conveys didactic lessons in an attempt to force the readers to
adopt a sound judgment about the actions and the characters.
Such didactic lessons set out a question about the extent to which
education affects one’s character. It has been made clear that
there is no educational determinism theory, but is one’s character
built independent of education and is it only affected by the
innate qualities or does education also affect one’s character? It is
the reader’s role to comprehend the lessons directed to him. In
case that the reader is being able to disclose the hidden reality of
the text, then he will also be able to unveil the concealed reality of
himself. Fielding’s Joseph Andrews and Tom Jones reveal their
aspects through sets of negations which stimulate the reader to
pass through the perplexed norms to form a convincing view of
the presented material. The negative form sets up a contrast that
brings about these perplexing norms which in their turn set out
an explicit understanding of the depicted idea.
Fielding extends the role of the narrator in Tom Jones, as teller of
the tale, as moral guide, and as literary commentator and critic. Each
of these voices was heard in Joseph Andrews, but here they come
together in a unique narrative persona. Adopting the role of the
stagecoach traveler, the narrator speaks directly to his fellow pas-
sengers, the readers. He is free to digress and comment whenever he
feels appropriate, and there is, therefore, no need for the long
interpolated tales such as appeared in Joseph Andrews. To remind
his readers that the purpose of fiction is aesthetic as well as moral,
the narrator often comments on literary topics: "Of the Serious in
Writing, and for What Purpose it is introduced"; "A wonderful long
chapter concerning the marvelous"; "Containing instructions very
necessary to be perused by modern critics”. Most important, Tom
Jones demonstrates Fielding’s skill in combining his moral vision
with aesthetic form in a way that is most pleasurable to the reader.
The reader learns how to live the good Christian life because Tom
learns that lesson. Far more effective than parody, sermon, or moral
exemplum, the combination of narrative voice and literary example
of plot and character is Fielding’s greatest legacy to the novel.
The structure of Tom Jones is based on the secularization of the
spiritual pilgrimage. Tom must journey from his equivocal
position as foundling on the country estate of Squire Allworthy
(Paradise Hall) to moral independence in the hellish city of
London. He must learn to understand and control his life. When
he learns this lesson, he will return to the country to enjoy the
plenitude of paradise regained that providence allows him. He
must temper his natural, impetuous charity with the prudence
that comes from recognition of his own role in the larger social
structure. In precise terms, he must learn to control his animal
appetites in order to win the love of Sophia Western and the
approval of Allworthy. This lesson is rewarded not only by his
gaining these two goals, but also by his gaining the knowledge of
his parentage and his rightful place in society. He is no longer a
"foundling". Tom Jones adapts the classical symmetry of the epic
in a more conscious and precise way. The novel is divided into
eighteen books. Some of the books, such as 1 and 4, cover long
periods of time and are presented in summary form, with the
narrator clearly present; others cover only a few days or hours,
with the narrator conspicuously absent and the presentation
primarily scenic. The length of each book is determined by the
importance of the subject, not the length of time covered.
The books are arranged in a symmetrical pattern. The first half
of the novel takes Tom from his mysterious birth to his adven-
tures in the lnn at Upton; the second half takes him from Upton
to London and the discovery of his parentage. Books 1 through 6
are set in Somerset at Squire All Worthy’s estate and culminate
with Tom’s affair with Molly. Books 7 through 12 are set on the
HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | (2021)8:167 | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-021-00849-z
ARTICLE
road to Upton, at the Inn, and on the road from Upton to
London; the two central books detail the adventures at the Inn
and Tom’s affair with Mrs. Waters. Books 13 through 18 take
Tom to London and begin with his affair with Lady Ballston.
Fielding’s Tom Jones, which is built on satire, tackles also two
important concepts namely, charity and chastity, and it is through
connotations of meaning that the author makes it difficult for the
readers to make a simple judgment and thus complications arise
for the evaluation of characters. Some puzzling questions are set
up; do mercy, compassion and forgiveness contradict justice or
not? But whether they contradict justice or whether they do not,
are they regarded as virtues or vices? Do mercy, compassion, and
forgiveness cause harm or reconcile? The problem is incorporated
in the fact that the Christian religious doctrine asks for forgive-
ness, while the laws of justice ask for punishment; a culprit should
get his deserts. The problem is also incorporated in the fact that it
is difficult to know which cases deserve forgiveness and com-
passion and which do not. Those who wish to be charitable with
either encourage vice and infringe the laws of justice or fulfil the
laws of justice and condemn others. In both cases, no assertions
of judging correctly are underscored as long as the evidence is not
sufficient to communicate the truth. A judge has to avoid hasty
judgment as long as judgment constitutes a major significance.
He has to judge not only in accordance with the laws of justice
but also in accordance with the laws of the religious doctrine.
Irony as one of the distinguished devices exploited in Tom Jones,
mainly unravels connotations of meanings and the nature of the
characters. Irony in the limited sense of the word is relevant to the
use of words for conveying the opposite of their literal meaning; or
it might be identified as an expression or utterance marked by a
deliberate contrast between apparent and intended meaning. The
aim behind these contrasts of meaning is to initiate humours or
rhetorical effects. It might be notable as well that incongruity arises
between what might be expected and what actually occurs. Field-
ing’s target for fully exploiting the device of irony in Tom Jones is
to delineate characters’ behavior and conduct. Fielding’s technique
sheds light on the significance of irony end underlines the fact that
language is not merely an inflexible conveyer of information but
rather the reader’s mind has to be more flexible end capable of
grasping shades of meaning. Fielding’s technique of irony also
destabilizes the reader’s assurance of his unscrutinized notions. It is
the attitudes of the reader as much as those of the characters that
are being subject to examination by the novelist (see Le Boeuf,
2007; Gibbs, 1994; Attardo, 2000; Chen, 1990; Barbe, 1995; Kruez
and Roberts, 1993; Clark and Gerrig, 1984).
The presentation of characters and the irony maintained in the
book is not the ultimate investigation, but the narrative role and
the narrator also contribute to the bulk of the whole work. Irony
becomes apparent when the book is re-read and the enjoyment of
re-reading the book is not only in questioning and doubting
attitudes or disagreeing with assertions or generally accepted
conclusions but also in being acquainted with the applied nar-
rative stratagems and the narrator’s role which works in a two-
way track; creating puzzling characters and functioning in a
puzzling way. Authors and readers are not the only characters
taking part in a fictional work, but rather narrators play a pivotal
role in the discourse of fiction. However, the narrative devices in
Fielding’s Tom Jones, vary from the first person narration to the
third person omniscience stratagem. Fowler (1971) points out
that Fielding chooses the ‘I figure’ especially in the interpolated
tales to give himself the opportunity of speaking out his own
viewpoint and addressing the reader directly to make this activity
the focus of importance. Fielding also attempts to follow the path
of the historian who keeps himself detached from the text. He
maintains the principle of objectivity and asserts his role as
17
ARTICLE HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-021-00849-z
selector and organizer. Commenting on the objective type of
narration in Fielding’s work, Leech (1981) that the significance of
employing the third person is to undermine the part of the
addressor in the novel’s discourse so as to combine the parts of
the implied author and narrator together.
The two major constants in Fielding’s writing are the attempt to
define a good, moral life, built on benevolence and honor, and a
concern for finding the best way to present that definition to the
reader. Thus, the moral and the technique can never be separated in
Fielding’s works. Joseph Andrews and Tom Jones bring together
these two impulses in Fielding’s most organically structured, bril-
liantly characterized, and masterfully narrated works. These novels
vividly capture the diversity of experience in the physical world and
the underlying benevolence of natural order, embodying them in a
rich array of the ridiculous in human behavior. Fielding combines a
positive assertion of the strength of goodness and benevolence
(demonstrated by the structure and plot of the novels) with the
sharp thrusts of the satirist’s attack upon the hypocrisy and vanity
of individual characters. These elements are held together by the
voice of the narrator—witty, urbane, charming -who serves as
moral guide through the novels and the world. Thus, beyond the
comic merits of each of the individual novels lies a collective sense
of universal mora] good. The voice of the narrator conveys to the
reader the truth of that goodness. Although in Tom Jones Fielding
still schematically associates characters with particular moral values,
the range of characters is wider than in his previous novels. Even a
minor character, such as Black George, has a life beyond his moral
purpose as representative of hypocrisy and self-serving
Data availability
This study is an analysis of Henry Fielding’s Tom Jones, ed. R.P.C.
Mutter, England: Penguin Books Ltd, 1966.
Received: 6 December 2020; Accepted: 21 June 2021;
References
Alderson C (2000) Assessing reading. CUP, Cambridge
Allot M (1959) Novelists on the novel. Routledge, Kegan Paul, London
Alter R (1964) Rogue’s progress: studies in the Picaresque novel. Harward Univ.
Press, Cambridge
Amante D (1981) The theory of ironic speech acts. Poet Today 2(2):77–96
Apostoli P (2004) The European itinerary of the Picaresque novel and its traces in
19th century Greek Literature: transformation and continuity. Neohelicon 31
(2):53–61
Ardila J (2010) Introduction: transational Picaresque. Philol Q 1:42–59
Ardila J (2015) The Picaresque Novel in Western Literature: from the sixteenth
century to the Neopicaresque. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Attardo S (2000). Irony as relevant in appropriateness. J Pragmat 1:793–826
Barbe K (1995) Irony in context. Benjamins, Amsterdam
Bates E (1987). Language acquisition and language breakdown from a functionalist
perspective. University of California
Battestin M, Battestin R (1989) Henry fielding: a life. Routledge, London
Battestin M (1959) The moral basis of fielding’s art: a study of Joseph Andrews.
Wesleyan University Press, Middletown
Berelson B (1952) Content analysis in communication research. Free Press, New
York
Blackwell B (2007) Corkscrews and courtesans: sex and death in circulation novels.
In: Blackwell M (ed) The secret life of things: animals, objects and it-
narratives in eighteenth-century England. Bucknell University Press, Lewis-
burgh, p. 289
Birke D (2015) Author, authority and authorial narration: the eighteenth-century
English Novel as a Test Case. In: Birke Dorothee, Koppe Tilmann eds Author
and narrator: transdisciplinary contributions to a narratological debate. De
Gruyter, Berlin/Boston, pp. 99–111
Boisvert D, Thiede R (2020) Language, mind, and power. Routledge & CRS Press
Booth W (1974) A rhetoric of irony. Chicago University Press, Chicago
18 HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | (2021)8:167 | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-021-00849-z
Brown G, Yule G (1983) Discourse analysis. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge
Brown H (1997) Institutions of the English novel: from Defoe to Scott. University
of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia
Brown G (1983) Discourse analysis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Brown RLJ (1980) The pragmatics of verbal irony. In: Roger W, Shuy, Shnukal
Anna eds. Language use and the uses of language. Georgetown University
Press, Washington, pp. 111–127
Busha C, Harter S (1980) Research methods in librarianship: techniques and
interpretation. Academic Press, New York
Campbell J (1995) Natural masques: gender identity in fielding’s plays and novels.
Stanford University Press, Stanford
Campbell J (2005). Fielding’s style. ELH 72. The Johns Hopkins University Press,
pp. 407–428
Campbell S, Roberts C (2007) Migration, ethnicity and competing discourse in the
job interview: synthesizing the institutional and personal. Discourse Soc 18
(3):243–271
Carlton P (1988). Tom Jones and the ’45 once again. Stud Novel 20(4) https://www.
jstor.org/stable/29532597
Carston (1988). Language and cognition. In: Newneyer F (ed), Linguistics: the
Cambridge survey, vol 3: Language: psychological and biological aspects.
Cambridge University Press
Carston R (1981) Irony and parody and the use-mention distinction. Nottm Lin-
guist Circ 10(1):24–35
Carter R (1986) A Question of interpretation: an overview of recent developments
in stylistics. In: Theo D’haen ed Linguistics and study of literature. Rodopi,
Amsterdam
Carter R (2010). Methodologies for stylistic analysis: practices and pedagogies.
https://teach-grammar.com/wp-content/uploads/26-3-2021
Cavanagh S (1997) Content analysis: concepts, methods and applications. Nurse
Res 4:5–16
Chapman R (1973) Linguistics and literature. Edward Arnold Publishers Ltd,
London
Chen R (1990) Verbal irony as implicature. Unpublished PhD Dissertation, Ball
State University, Muncie
Chirman-Campbell K (2013) He is not dressed without a muff: muffs, mascu-
linity, and la mode in English Satire. In: Mansfield ElizabethC, Malone
Kelly ed. Seeing satire in the eighteenth century. Voltaire Foundation,
Oxford
Chomsky N (1965) Aspects of the theory of syntax. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
Chomsky N (1968) Language and mind. Longman, New York
Clark H, Gerrig R (1984) On the pretense of irony. J Exp Psychol Gen 113
(1):121–126
Claude R (ed.) (2007) The Cambridge companion to Henry Fielding. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge
Coley W (1987) The true patriot and selected writings. Wesleyan University Press,
Middletown
Cook G (1994) Discourse and literature. OUP, Oxford
Cook G (2000) Language play, language learning. OUP, Oxford
de Beaugrande R (1980) Text, discourse and process. Longman, London
de Beaugrande R (1984) Text production. Ablex, Norwood
de Sola Pool I (1959) Trends in content analysis. University of Illinois Press,
Urbana
Downe-Wamboldt B (1992) Content analysis: method, applications and issues.
Health Care Women Int 13:313–321
Downie J (2009) A political biography of Henry Fielding. Pickering & Chatto,
London
Eisenberg D (2018). Does the Picaresque novel exist? https://www.researchgate.net.
publicaiton/238690386
El-dali H (2011) Meaning in language use: reflections from pragmatics and dis-
course analysis with special reference to political discourse. Ann Arts Soc Sci
32:5–77
El-dali H (2012). Narration and persuasion in English by Arabic and Spanish
speakers. Lambert Academic Publishing, pp. 1–154
El-dali H (2019a) Language of consumer advertising: linguistic and Psychological
perspectives. Stud Linguist Lit 3(2):95–126
El-dali H (2019b) Perfecting the theory of meaning: the story of pragmatic and
discourse analyses. Adv Soc Sci Cult 1(1):50–89
Elo S, Kyngäs H (2008) The qualitative content analysis process. J Adv Nurs
62:107–115
Emberley J (1988) Venus and furs: the cultural politics of fur. I.B. Tauris, London
Emden C, Hancock H, Schubert S, Darbyshire P (2001) A web of intrigue: the
search for quality in qualitative research. Nurse Educ Pract 1:2014–211
Empson W (1982) Tom Jones. In: Paulson Ronald ed. Fielding: a collection of
essays. Prentice Hall Inc, Hoboken, pp. 123–145
Conference of the International Journal of Arts & Sciences,
CD-ROM. ISSN: 1943-6114 :: 11(02):95–100 (2018)

THE GENDER ROLES IN FIELDING’S THE HISTORY OF TOM JONES: A

FOUNDLING IN THE LIGHT OF HÉLÈNE CIXOUS’S FEMINIST
APPROACH

Berna Köseo÷lu

Kocaeli University, Turkey

Henry Fielding’s The History of Tom Jones: A Foundling (1749), portraying the panorama of the 18th
century English society in a realistic manner, can be analyzed in the light of feminist philosophy due to
the reflections of the problematic position of the female characters under the oppression imposed by the
male-dominated society in the novel. The secondary status attributed to women and the primary roles
attributed to men show that female characters are repressed because of the stereotyped roles determined
by the patriarchal society. In this regard, considering the rise of feminism and the discourse put forward
by the French feminist Hélène Cixous, it is clear that her feminist theory can be adapted into Fielding’s
novel, therefore in this study the most significant characteristics of the feminist approach introduced by
Cixous will be identified and explored in The History of Tom Jones by questioning the gender roles in
the 18th century English society.

Keywords: Henry fielding, The history of Tom Jones, Hélène Cixous, Feminism, Gender roles.

Henry Fielding’s The History of Tom Jones: A Foundling (1749), illustrating the 18th century English
society and reflecting the combination of fact and fiction by means of the fictitious characters’
experiences, is a landmark in English realistic novels. Highlighting the conflict between virtue and vice,
exploring the conflicts between women and men, Tom Jones mirrors the life of the individualized
characters, the ordinary people in a realistic manner. In this sense, the real-like persons and fictional
incidents come together and shed light on the realities of the 18th century England. In this sense, one of
the problematic issues of the 18th century England, the destructive nature of the patriarchal values upon
women, can be recognized in the novel, so the French feminist, Hélène Cixous’s emphasis on the
necessity to destroy the taboos preventing women from achieving their goals is worth discussing.
The repression of women, their physical as well as psychological confinement can be observed in the
novel through the experiences of the female characters; especially the parts related to the character,
Sophia, should be analyzed. Taking Sophia’s situation into account, it is noteworthy that she is faced with
the oppression of the male-dominated society, which turns the lives of many women into metaphorical
imprisonment with strict orders and continuous surveillance in the 18th century England, therefore these
females become invisible in social life and turn out to be insignificant because of the patriarchal values as
Cixous also underlines:

Women. Invisible as humans. But, of course, perceived as tools – dirty, stupid, lazy,
underhanded, etc. […]. […] there have to be two races – the masters and the slaves.
[…] the world is divided in half, organized hierarchically, and that it maintains this
distribution through violence. […]. There has to be some ‘other’ – no master without a

95
96 The Gender Roles in Fielding’s the History of Tom Jones...

slave, no economic-political power without exploitation, no dominant class without

cattle under the yoke[…]. If there were no other, one would invent it. (The Newly
Born Woman 201)

In this regard, Cixous’s criticism about the binary oppositions and stereotyped roles shows that the
unquestioned superior position of man and the inferior position of woman should be questioned in order
to eliminate the inequality between the male and the female. Moreover, as a postmodern feminist, she
underlines the fact that the superior cannot claim his superiority without the inferior; in other words,
without the discourse asserting the secondary position of the females, the males cannot assert that they
have the primary importance. Men attribute an underprivileged role for women in order to claim a
privileged status. As a consequence, in Tom Jones, such a kind of inferior position is also attributed to
Sophia by the male-dominated society. Since she does not have any voice or right, she is forced to marry
for the sake of materialistic understanding. This negative impact of arranged marriage upon women
comes into view through the reflections of Sophia’s suffering because of her father’s insistence on her
marriage for the sake of materialism. In the 18th century English society, people regarded marriage as a
way to gain prosperity, to have a place in the social arena and wanted to gain fortune and property
through marriage. In this perspective, in the novel, Mr Blifil, whose aim is to marry Sophia for the sake of
materialistic reasons, comes to the fore as it can be seen in the quotation:

He was indeed perfectly well satisfied with his prospect of success; for as to that
entire and absolute possession of the heart of his mistress which romantic lovers
require, the very idea of it never entered his head. Her fortune and her person were the
sole objects of his wishes, of which he made no doubt soon to obtain the absolute property;
as Mr Western’s mind was so earnestly bent on the match; and as he well knew the
strict obedience which Sophia was always ready to pay to her father’s will […]. (109)

The arranged marriage is regarded by Mr Blifil as a success which is a vehicle to gain “absolute
property.” Instead of Sophia’s love, her “fortune” leads him to that match, which will enable him to
become more wealthy. His emphasizing Sophia’s submission to her father and her powerlessness in front
of men justifies that the female is seen just as an object that should obey the dictates of the powerful. As
Rivero stresses, “women are defined with property (136) […] and Sophia […] is correspondingly
diminished as she becomes part of the property relations” (139). This proves the situation of the 18th
century women who had no identity at home and in the social fields. Similarly, Cixous also refers to the
repressed position of women and their identity problems along these words: “She restrains herself, and is
restrained, by a thousand bonds, hitched, conjugated, strings, chains, nets, leash, feeding dish, network of
servile, reassuring dependencies. She is defined by her connections, wife of, as she was daughter of, from
hand to hand […]” (Coming to Writing 39-40). Thus, women can prove their identities only through
marriage and can come into sight merely as a wife, as a mother or as a daughter not as an independent
individual, as a result such a kind of restricted life results in nothing but oppression. The way to overcome
the inequality between the male and the female is to believe that man and woman are equal in terms of
intelligence and skills, in this regard “Cixous views the division of people into the categories “man” and
“woman” as a natural result of biological difference” (Crowder 137). Therefore, the difference between
the two sexes is just based on the biological dissimilarities, so it proves that the secondary role attributed
to women due to their biological difference is a discrimination.
Considering Sophia’s vulnerable position, the male characters’ disregarding her emotions and ideas,
what can clearly be underlined is that she represents many women of the 18th century English society,
whose lives were directed, whose movements were controlled and whose decisions were determined by
men. The dialogue between Sophia and her father very explicitly portrays the absolute authority of men in
society:

She begged him not to make her the most miserable creature on earth by forcing her to
marry a man whom she detested. […] “Oh! sir, […] not only your poor Sophy’s
 Berna Köseoğlu 97

happiness; her very life, her being, depends upon your granting her request. I cannot
live with Mr Blifil. To force me into this marriage would be killing me.” “Then die
[…]” cries he. [Sophia cries], “Can the best of fathers break my heart? Will he kill
me by the most painful, cruel, lingering death?[…] [S]uch a marriage is worse than
death.” (110)

Sophia’s indicating that she will be “the most miserable creature on earth,” if she marries a man she hates,
efficiently reflects that the life, happiness and the future of women depend on the males, who oppress
women with strict rules. Obliging someone to marry for the sake of self-interest is nothing but repressing
the sentiments and opinions of an individual who has the right to take her own decisions and to determine
the person she will marry as Sophia also says: “I shall never marry a man I dislike” (125). In this sense,
Fielding “show[s] us [a scene] […] which […] portray[s] the […] conflict between father and daughter”
(Watt 262). The reason of the conflict between the characters is associated with the conflict between the
opposite sexes. On the one hand, the male claims that he has the right to determine the future of the
female, on the other hand the female asks for her rights to achieve freedom. In this regard, Cixous also
underlines this contradiction between the female and the male and highlights the suffocation experienced
by women:

Don’t go near the abyss. If she should discover its (her) force! If she should, suddenly,
take pleasure in, profit from its immensity! If she should take the leap! And fall not
like a stone, but like a bird. If she should discover herself to be a swimmer of the
unlimited! Let yourself go! Let go of everything! Lose everything! Take to the air.
Take to the open sea. […]. Go, fly, swim, bound, descend, cross, love the unknown,
love the uncertain, love what has not yet been seen, love no one, whom you are, whom
you will be, leave yourself […].(Coming to Writing 40)

As Cixous underlines, women have not been allowed to explore their identities, talents, capabilities for
many centuries, as a result they could not compete with the power of men before the rise of feminist
movement. According to Cixous, if women have the chance to break the barriers, eliminate the
stereotyped roles, destroy the taboos of the male-dominated society, they can achieve proving themselves
and become active participants of social life. As Vitanza also asserts, “for Cixous men and women, male
and female are not fixed […] cultural categories” (334); according to the cultural values of different
societies, the roles of women and men differ, as a result one cannot assert that gender is a fixed cultural
category. In this regard, the cultural norms in the 18th century English society created a primary position
for men and an insignificant status for women. Most of the women could not be involved in life itself and
explore the “unknown” due to the patriarchal norms of the male-dominated society as observed in
Fielding’s Tom Jones as well, as a consequence the typical clash between the powerful male and the
powerless female in the 18th century English society appears in the novel. The experiences of the fictitious
characters, reflecting the reality of the age, contribute to the didactic concept of the novel. Sophia’s being
captivated at home by her father, her aunt’s instructing her about the negative outcomes of challenging
the accepted rules of society, can also be realized within the relations between men and women in the 18th
century community. Sophia’s imprisonment, Mrs Western’s training her in order to make her a
‘gentlewoman’ and her stress on the benefits of marriage, which is based on profits, can be observed
along these remarks:

Sophia had passed the last twenty-four hours in no very desirable manner. During a
large part of them she had been entertained by her aunt with lectures of prudence,
recommending to her the example of the polite world, where love […] is at present
entirely laughed at, and where women consider matrimony, […] only as the means of
making their fortunes, and of advancing themselves in the world. (118)
98 The Gender Roles in Fielding’s the History of Tom Jones...

The heroine’s imprisonment within the walls of her own house, her being guided by Mrs Western, the
lady’s stressing the necessity of matrimony for becoming prosperous and having a social status in the
world, show that the understanding of marriage is based not on love, but on materialistic reasons and self-
interest. It should be noted that the principles of the male-dominated social order make women the
prisoners of the males who abuse their power and impose psychological pressure upon the females. In this
outlook, the arranged marriage Sophia is exposed to, despite her love for Tom, enables the readers to
analyze her emotions and her psychological suffering as it is pointed out: “Sophia had been lately so
distracted between hope and fear, her duty and love to her father, her hatred to Blifil, her compassion, and
her love for Jones […]” (222). The conflict between love and duty leads her to “please and honour her
father, but in the face of his exercise of […] absolute authority, […] [to] rebel” (Brown 108).
Consequently, although Sophia illustrates the agonies of the powerless women in the 18th century society,
she also epitomizes a new type of female who rejects the unquestionable power of men. Similarly,
Cixous, in her work, “The Laugh of the Medusa”, emphasizes the necessity to destroy the stereotyped role
attached to women and to recreate women’s image as follows: “[…] what I say has at least two sides and
two aims: to break up, to destroy; and to foresee the unforeseeable, to project. […]. It is time to liberate
the New Woman from the Old by coming to know her [...]” (875, 878). Unless the underprivileged role
allotted for women is destroyed, it is impossible to recreate the image of “New Woman”. When women
have the opportunity to enjoy freedom, equality and justice, they can struggle with the restrictions and
repression of the male-dominated society and eliminate the passive, silent and secondary position
attributed to females, thus the concept of “New Woman” will appear; in other words, this new type of
woman has the freedom of competing with the powerful status of man, proving her talents, capabilities,
self-determination and self-confidence, showing what she can achieve when she is allowed to stand on her
own feet and demonstrate her potential to attain success. Thus, “Cixous implores women […] to seize and
make words their own, to take risks, themselves of fear and caution, to open up the possibility of loving
with all of themselves […]” (Davies 514). Why Cixous encourages women to express themselves, to have
courage, to challenge against all of the threats of the male-dominated society and to love themselves, is
related to the importance of their gaining self-respect, self-determination and self-confidence to eliminate
the injustice inflicted on them by men.
Considering Cixous’s emphasis on the importance of independence for women, it is worth dwelling
on certain details in the novel that confirm the necessity of giving women freedom, enabling them to
prove their identities and to prevent men from inflicting their supremacy over females as it is obvious
through Mrs Western’s words: “English women […] are no slaves. We are not to be locked up […]. We
have as good a right to liberty as yourselves. We are to be convinced by reason and persuasion only, and
not governed by force” (120). Although Mrs Western supports the arranged marriages of the time as it is
mentioned before, at the same time, she expresses her ideas about the vulnerability of women and the
necessity to improve their positions. Underlining that women are not “slaves” and they should enjoy the
right of freedom, she highlights the fact that instead of implementing power upon women or confining
them both physically and mentally, the males should give them the opportunity of voicing their ideas and
showing their abilities. The obedience of the female in society to the dictatorial attitude of men clearly
portrays the spread of the materialistic understanding in marriage institution as it is seen from Mrs
Western’s words as well:

It is impossible you should hate a man from whom you have received no injury. By hatred,
therefore, you mean no more than dislike, which is no sufficient objection against your
marrying of him. I have known many couples, who have entirely disliked each other, lead
very comfortable genteel lives. (124)

Her trying to persuade Sophia to marry Mr Blifil and her paying no attention to the young woman’s
dislike of the man by stressing that many couples go on their marriage in spite of their dislike of each
other, reveal that women are accustomed to performing what the society expects and regards as
appropriate. As a result, as Cixous stresses most of the women are not aware of the potential they have
 Berna Köseoğlu 99

and do not have the chance to achieve their goals and desires, therefore Cixous points out her complaint
about the secondary position of women: “[…] there is so little room for her desire in society that, because
of not knowing what to do with it, she ends up not knowing where to put it or if she even has it” (The
Newly Born Woman 207). As Cixous underlines, women cannot achieve their desires as there is little
place for them in society; the more they are restricted, the more they become unaware of the desire within
their souls to achieve their goals. Similarly, in Tom Jones, the female characters cannot realize their
yearnings and ambitions due to the repression inflicted on them.
Analyzing the situation of the women in the 18th century English society, it would not be wrong to
assert that their situation was not different from Sophia’s condition. Especially people’s ignoring the
desires, emotions and opinions of women draws attention both in Tom Jones and in the society of the era.
It is seen that the harmony between the partners in marriage is not taken into account because of the
materialistic understanding in society as it is noticeable as well when Mrs Western’s likening Sophia’s
marriage to the ones between kingdoms is analyzed:

[…] when a daughter of France is married into Spain, the princess herself is alone
considered in the match? No! it is a match between two kingdoms, rather than between two
persons. The same happens in great families such as ours. The alliance between the families
is the principal matter. You ought to have a greater regard for the honour of your family than
for your own person […]. (125)

It is recognizable that for the sake of the “honour” of the families and for the agreement between them,
the women are obligated to accept what the others plan, determine and desire. Consequently, it is
impossible for these women in such a vulnerable position not to turn out to be programmed, machine-like
beings, who are manipulated by the dictates of the others, as a result of which mental depression
inevitably takes place. In this manner, it is evident that “[h]uman nature and especially human psychology
are crucial interests for Fielding” (Rosengarten 54-5). Exposing the inner worlds of his characters, he
aims at describing their sufferings and metaphorical confinement; particularly, women’s distressed
position and their social imprisonment in society are reflected in the novel. Thus, what Cixous indicates
about the limited environment and the restricted opportunities allotted to women comes to the fore:

When I say ‘woman,’ I’m speaking of woman in her inevitable struggle against
conventional man; and of a universal woman subject who must bring women to their
senses and to their meaning in history. But first it must be said that in spite of the
enormity of the repression that has kept them in the ‘dark’ – that dark which people
have been trying to make them accept as their attribute – there is, at this time, no
general woman, no one typical woman. (“The Laugh of the Medusa” 875-876)

The inevitable struggle of women comes into view as a result of the traditional understanding of the male-
dominated society. The way how to overcome the conventional patriarchal notions is to have a “universal
woman subject,” who will encourage and motivate women to challenge against the stereotyped gender
roles, who will eliminate the darkness around women’s lives by destroying the “general” or “typical”
image of females. In the same manner, in Tom Jones, female characters are faced with a similar kind of
oppression. The description of Molly as a character left behind, abandoned with a child is doubtlessly
common in the male-dominated society and her despising men for their immorality can be noticed
through her words:

And this is your love for me, to forsake me in this manner, now you have ruined me!
How often, when I told you that all men are false and perjury alike, and grow tired of
us as soon as ever they have had their wicked wills of us. […] No, I shall always hate
and despise the whole sex for your sake. (81)

It is worth emphasizing that the illustration of men by Molly harshly condemns the accepted norms of the
18th century English male-dominated society. The male’s destroying the lives of females and their
100 The Gender Roles in Fielding’s the History of Tom Jones...

behaving women as if they were objects could be recognized in the 18th century society, therefore Molly
criticizes Tom and the others who abandon women after possessing their bodies and minds. In this sense,
the women oppressed by the authority of the patriarchal society turn out to be mechanized beings without
any freedom of choice, consequently Cixous’s reference to the importance of freedom for women should
be taken into consideration: “Gain your freedom: get rid of everything, vomit up everything, give up
everything […]. Search yourself, seek out the shattered, the multiple I, that you will be still further on,
and emerge from one self, shed the old body, shake off the Law” (Coming to Writing 40). As seen in the
quotation, Cixous motivates women to discover their abilities, destroy the “shattered” female image
created by the patriarchal society, get rid of the old, established representation of females and change the
“Law” about the gender roles established by the male-dominated society, as a consequence women will
gain their freedom and prove their talents.
Finally, it is clear that in The History of Tom Jones, there is no equality between female and male
characters. Female characters are repressed by the patriarchal values as a consequence of the dominance
of male characters in the novel. Especially the practice of arranged marriage destroys female characters
who do not have any control over their own lives. In this sense, the feminist discourse of Cixous, her
emphasis on the silence and subservience of women under the dominance of men, can also be observed in
Fielding’s Tom Jones. She encourages women to ask for their rights, challenge against the strict norms of
the male-dominated society, prove their identities, improve their skills, discover the undiscovered, change
the wrong discourse about women by resisting the oppressed image of women, recreating the discourse
about females and inventing the image of New Woman, thus it is obvious that since the discourse created
by male characters in the novel is dominant, female characters are exposed to oppression and abuse of
power, so in the light of Cixous’s feminist philosophy it is no doubt that the discourse about gender roles
determining the powerful and the powerless sex in society and categorizing people should be recreated so
as to achieve equality between woman and man.

Works Cited

1. Brown, Homer Obed. Institutions of the English Novel: From Defoe to Scott. Philadelphia: Pennsylvania UP,
1997.
2. Cixous, Hélène, Keith Cohen, and Paula Cohen. “The Laugh of the Medusa.” Signs: Journal of Women in
Culture and Society 1.4 (1976): 875-893.
3. Cixous, Hélène, and Catherine Clément. The Newly Born Woman. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press,
1986.
4. Cixous, Hélène. Coming to Writing and Other Essays. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1991.
5. Crowder, Diane Griffin. “Amazons and Mothers? Monique Wittig, Helene Cixous and Theories of Women’s
Writing.” Contemporary Literature 24.2 (1983): 117-144, www.jstor.org/stable/1208100.Accessed 3 April
2018.
6. Davies, Bronwyn. “The Problem of Desire.” Social Problems 37.4 (1990): 501-516,
www.jstor.org/stable/800578. Accessed 4 April 2018.
7. Fielding, Henry. The History of Tom Jones: A Foundling. 1749. Chicago: Chicago UP, 1952.
8. Rivero, Albert J. Critical Essays on Henry Fielding. New York: Simon and Schuster Macmillan, 1998.
9. Rosengarten, Richard A. Henry Fielding and the Narration of Providence: Divine Design and the Incursions of
Evil. New York: Palgrave, 2000.
10. Vitanza, Victor J. “A Feminist Sophistic?.” JAC (1995): 321-349, www.jstor.org/stable/20866029.Accessed 4
April 2018.
11. Watt, Ian. The Rise of the Novel: Studies in Defoe, Richardson and Fielding. London: Pimlico, 2000.
Plot Construction of Tom Jones
Introduction
Henry Fielding, perhaps, was the first English writer who gave a conscious design and plan
to a narrative involving a great variety of characters and incidents. Earlier writers had often
strung together divergent incidents, regardless of their connection or plausibility. They did not
show the ability to draw emphasis from skillful grouping of characters and incidents. Fielding,
for the first time, showed remarkable architectonic skill; he evolved a definite and firm plan for
his narrative. He does not throw in incidents haphazardly upon his hero. Fielding is like a master
of a house who is showing his visitors around. As Aurelien Digeon puts it "He takes them only
where he wishes, and he has made a personal choice of what he is going to let them see. With
this sovereign artist, we are always brought back to the idea of a personal synthesis of different
elements." Fielding shows himself to be a great master of plot. His ability to construct a near-
perfect plot is evident in Tom Jones.

Fielding's Remarkable Craftsmanship

Fielding is always careful in his use of those materials and aspects of art which would bring
about a structural unity in his novel. The incidents in the novel bear a close relationship to one
another, i.e., they evolve logically out of one another. They help to advance the plot of the story.
Thus, there is an organic unity in Tom Jones. Fielding is also careful in showing a harmony or
connection between character and incident and style. The characters give rise to the situations,
and the situations, in turn, affect the characters. The style is eminently appropriate to the plan of
the novel as a comic epic in prose. Yet another unity is to be found in the 'moral vision' which
Fielding gives to the novel. Different aspects thus contribute to the sense of coherent wholeness
produced by the novel. "Fielding was as superb a craftsman in his own way as Henry James",
remarks Walter Allen, while Walter Scott called him the father of the English Novel. Both
remarks are indisputable.

Unity of Narration in Tom Jones

Fielding has been accorded praise for his plot-construction by different quarters. Oliver
Elton admires his skill as an "architect of plot". "What a master of composition Fielding was",
enthused Coleridge, and compared the plot of Tom Jones with those of Oedipus and The
Alchemist for its perfection. In Scott's opinion, Tom Jones was "the most masterly example of
an artful and well told novel". In Tom Jones, Scott continues, Fielding has "set the distinguished
example of a story regularly built and consistent in all its parts, in which nothing occurs, and
scarce a personage is introduced, that has not some share in tending to advance the catastrophe".
Though modern critics have found fault with the digressions in Tom Jones, on the whole one
can say that the plot of the novel accords with Aristotle's conception of plot as being an organic
whole, in which all parts connect with one another, and nothing can be added or taken away
without causing damage to the whole.

Symmetrical Arrangement of Incidents: an Organic Plot

Tom Jones represents a consummate skill in Plot Construction. The clear symmetry of the
frame within which the story is embodied, becomes evident when we examine its structure. The
novel is made up of eighteen books. The book is further divided into three parts. The first six
books are confined to Tom's life spent in the countryside. The next six books devote themselves
to the journey of Tom and some of the other characters, and are in the tradition of the
picaresque. The last six books deal with the life in London, culminating in the resolution of
various complications.

The introduction of the various groups of characters is done with a certain sense of order.
We are first shown Squire Allworthy, then his servant, Mrs. Wilkins. Then comes Bridget, the
sister of Allworthy, after whom we are introduced to Jenny Jones, who is soon taken to be the
foundling's mother. The second book sees the grouping around Jones. Captain Blifil tries his
best to remove Tom from the house. The book also sees the stage cleared of Jenny Jones and
Partridge, who go elsewhere to work out their destiny. Captain Blifil's death leaves the stage
ready, in the third Book, for Tom and young Blifil. There is a contrast shown between their
characters and in the opinions of their close associates regarding them.

The novel thus goes along a well organised and planned path. It is so smoothly and
symmetrically planned that Books IX and X are not only the mathematical center of the novel,
but also the central point from the point of view of the action. It is the comic peripety of the
novel. It is clearly an example of Fielding's technical skill. The scene at Upton Inn is remarkable
for its place in the structural unity of the work. Tom Jones and Partridge arrive at the inn, alone
with a woman whom they know as Mrs. Waters, but who, in reality, is Jenny Jones. Thus Jenny
Jones is reintroduced in the middle portion of the book. She has a significant part in the
development of the plot. In the preceding chapters, the situations have been set in such a manner
as to ensure all the important dramatis personae in the two 'pursuits' (i.e., Sophia behind Jones,
and Squire Western after Sophia) to converge on the inn. Until this point in the narrative, Sophia
is pursuing Tom. Once at Upton Inn, she comes to know of Tom's escapade with Mrs. Waters.
She leaves in disappointment. From now on it is Tom who will pursue Sophia. The middle of
the novel thus sees a reversal of roles in the hero and the heroine's actions. The scenes at Upton
are very important for they are the culminating point after which the action moves towards its
denouement. New characters who are introduced, are all relevant parts of the action of the story.

There are other features, too, which contribute to the structural unity of the novel. It has been
observed that the two digressions which critics assail as detracting from the perfection of the
plot, are placed symmetrically before and after the structural middle of the novel. The Man of
the Hill's story comes in Book VIII, and that of Mrs. Fitzpatrick, in Book XI. Tom's escapade in
rural England with Molly Seagrim is symmetrically set off by his entanglement in urban
England, i.e. in London, with Lady Bellaston. Sophia similarly, has to face the unwanted
attentions of Blifil in the first section, of the novel, and those of Lord Fellamar in the later
section. If we have a farce of a hidden lover behind curtains in Molly's bedroom, it is balanced
by similar scenes in Tom's bedroom at Mrs. Miller's lodgings. Thus, even minor incidents show
a certain order in their arrangement.

Unifying Factors in Tom Jones

Several critics have interpreted variously the unifying factor of Tom Jones. Some consider
the unifying factor to be the sustained concealment and final disclosure of Tom's parentage.
Oliver Elton considers it to be pleasant to see Tom Jones as a puzzle and to see how well the
plan works out. Other critics consider the unifying factor to be the love interest as embodied in
the love affair of Tom and Sophia, or the conflict between young Blifil and Tom, and the quasi-
picaresque sequence of Tom's adventures with women along the road. Yet none of these actions
subsumes the others to assume an overall importance, though each of them is important in itself.
R. S. Crane, however, discovers a distinctive whole in the novel. He considers the unifying idea
as consisting, not in any mere combination of the different parts, but rather in the dynamic
system of action, extending throughout the novel. It is through this system that divergent
intentions and beliefs of a number of characters of different natures and states of knowledge are
brought to co-operate with the assistance of Fortune in the exposition and denouement of the
plot. These persons are, of course, somehow related to the neighboring families of the
Allworthy's and the Westerns.

Different persons assist Fortune in bringing about, firstly, an incomplete and precarious
union, based upon an affinity of nature inspite of disparate status, between Tom and Allworthy
on one hand, and between Tom and Sophia, on the other. The same combination of persons and
Fortune, separates Tom as completely as possible from Allworthy and Sophia through actions
which impel them, one after the other, to reverse their opinions of Tom's character. Then, just as
he seems about to fulfill the old prophecy that 'he was born to be hanged' the combination of
persons and Fortune restores them unexpectedly to him in a more entire and stable union of both
affection and fortune than he has known before.

The action begins with Bridget's plan to gain security for herself by passing off her
illegitimate son, Tom, as a foundling. She does intend, however, to explain the true situation to
her brother. But her intention of explanation does not get carried out because of her marriage to
Captain Blifil. Young Blifil is born, and becomes a potential rival for Tom. Bridget's plan brings
Jenny Jones and Partridge into the action, and both of them have to depart from the
neighborhood.

Tom has an instinctive love and respect for Squire Allworthy. It is the instinctive love of one
good nature for another. While Tom’s affection for Allworthy is in no danger of being altered,
that of the Squire for Tom does admit itself to change. Allworthy in capable of misjudging
character, and hence, capable of passing an adverse judgment on Tom. There are plenty of
opportunities for such misjudgments to occur. Tom's actions, though quixotic and well-
intentioned, can be interpreted in a bad light. One such example is his attempt to cover Black
George and help his family. Blifil sees to it that every such incident is used for blackening the
character of Tom in Allworthy's eyes. Initially, these actions do hot cause much harm to Tom,
but they give an indication of things to come.

Tom and Sophia are attracted towards each other, once again, in an instinctive recognition of
similar good natures. They are brought together through a series of incidents. Sophia recognizes
the basic goodness in Tom, and loves him in spite of his affair with Molly. She thus proves to be
a better judge of character than Squire Allworthy. But Squire Western does not like the idea of
Tom and Sophia marrying, because of Tom's dubious parentage and his poor material prospects.
Some event is thus required to change Tom's position as a poor foundling before he can attain
his Sophia, since neither is willing to flout the authority of his or her guardian.
 The true nature of Tom's birth would have been revealed and have resolved the problem of
unwilling guardians, if fortune had not favoredBlifil. Bridget had told the whole story to
Dowling, but her letter is intercepted by Blifil. Fielding now sets in motion a complex action,
which begins with All worthy's illness and ends with his order to Tom to leave his estate. Sophia
follows in order to escape a compulsory marriage with Blifil.

Tom meets three persons on his way, one after the other, all of whom know something about
his birth. From the first of these people, i.e., Partridge, Tom learns that he is not Partridge's son.
He also meets Jenny Jones alias Mrs. Waters, and Dowling the lawyer, both of whom know
fully well about Tom's parentage. But his meeting with these two characters does not
immediately lead to a revelation. The incidents at Upton Inn increase the complications. Tom's
gallantry to Mrs. Waters leads to an angry encounter with Mr. Fitzpatrick. He also misses
Sophia who, on hearing about Tom's escapade, leaves the inn to go to London.

Tom follows in the wake of Sophia, to go to London. His misfortunes are not, however,
over. He is led into the disreputable affair with Lady Bellaston. In the process, he brings upon
himself that good lady's anger. As a consequence, Lady Bellaston sets in motion new efforts to
separate Sophia and Tom. Lord Fellamar's attempted rape of Sophia, is fortunately prevented by
the timely arrival of Squire Western. Lady Bellaston further sends the letter, which Tom had
sent her, to Sophia in order'to estrange her towards Tom. She also arranges to get Tom
kidnapped by a press-gang. In the latter attempt, however, she fails.

Fortune, ultimately, begins to smile upon Tom. Mrs. Miller speaks in his favorto Squire
Allworthy as well as to Sophia. The persons who know about the reality of Tom's birth collect
near Allworthy. The letter from Square decides in Tom's favor. Allworthy, at last, sees his own
misjudgment of Tom's character. Step by step, Tom is cleared of the black character which he
has been given. Blifil's rashness (and fortune's intervention) leads to the revelation. Jenny
reveals her story to Allworthy. Dowling, too, adds his contribution on being questioned. At last,
Bridget's intention of revealing every tiling, has been fulfilled. The union of Sophia and Tom is
partly brought about by the intervention of Mrs. Miller, All worthy and Western, on behalf of
Tom. But the determining factor is the meeting between Tom, who is now repentant of his
escapades, and the forgiving Sophia.

Thus there is an intricate scheme of probabilities, involving moral choices, mistaken

judgements and accidents of fortune, which binds the many parts of the novel together - from
the time Tom is found in Allworthy's bed until He achieves his double good fortune at the end of
Book XVIII. Tom Jones is a complex novel teeming with incidents and characters. The unity of
the whole is achieved solely by means of a severe subordination of all the multitudinous details
to the central plan. In the long and elaborate history, there is hardly any detail which does not, in
some way or other, help to carry forward the main action to its conclusion.

Incidents Interlinked and Interconnected; Add to the Unity

The seemingly insignificant and trivial incident is made to contribute to the action of the
novel. The structural unity is maintained by the repeated appearance of some objects and
characters. Certain things seem, to happen most casually, as if they were just not intended to
have any important part to play. Yet, each such detail has a necessary place in the chain of
events which leads to the denouement. "There are many little circumstances", Fielding wrote,
"too often omitted by injudicious historians, from which events of the utmost importance arise.
The world may, indeed, be considered as a vast machine, in which the great wheels are
originally set in motion by those which are very minute, and almost imperceptible to any but the
strongest eyes." Of such importance are the hundred-pound bill which Sophia loses and the muff
which she rescues from the fire.

It is the hundred-pound bill which gives a clue to Tom about Sophia's whereabouts. It later
gives him a plausible reason for meeting Sophia at Lady Bellaston’s place. When Sophia rescues
the muff from the fire, Tom gets an indication of her love for him. The muff is left by Sophia at
the Upton Inn in order to make Tom realize his folly and give an impetus to follow Sophia. The
chance encounter with Ensign Northerton and the subsequent quarrel is not without significance.
Tom, later, rescues Mrs. Waters from the hands of Northerton. Tom is involved in an encounter
with a highwayman, who later turns out to be a relative of Mrs. Miller in needy circumstances.

Characters and Development of Plot: Harmony and Inter-

relationship
Fielding shows skill in his management of characters and in linking their importance to the
development of plot. Characters are not introduced for their own sake, as they often are in
Dickens, for instance, because of sheer entertainment value. Most of Fielding's characters have a
relevant part in the structure of the story. He did not let his attention be distracted from the main
theme in the creation of some original and striking figures. Almost all of his characters are made
subservient to the main theme of the novel. There is a good correspondence between character
and plot or action. The characters are not there merely to provide interesting entertainment, but
they contribute to the furthering of the plot.

The first part of the novel ends with the expulsion of Tom by Allworthy and this is caused
by Allworthy's misplaced confidence in his capability to judge. It is helped by Tom's happy
drunkenness and indiscretions with Molly, which is misinterpreted by Allworthy.

In the middle portion of the novel, Tom's entanglement with Mrs. Waters brings about a
whole series of fresh complications in his relations with Sophia. In the last part of the novel, we
have a similar complication arising from Tom's involvement with Lady Bellaston. Squire
Western s rigid adherence to well-established social values give rise to Sophia's decision to
escape from the house. Blifil's utter self-centredness and jealousy first act to bring about the
downfall of Tom. In the end, they serve to resolve the issues.

The characters are never introduced as mere comic appendages. Each has its own role to
play—from Aunt Western, whose political ideas come just in time to prevent Squire Western
from tyrannizing over his daughter and allow the girl to escape, to Mrs. Honour, the waiting-
woman of comedy, whose very defects make her invaluable to the lovers. Indeed, the way in
which things are arranged, has led some critics to feel that it is all done too carefully. None of
Tom's good deeds goes unrewarded: Tom did well by the highwayman, and Mrs. Miller and Mr.
Nightingale, All these persons, in her turn, help Tom. The book is a large organism, whose
various parts are closely inter-connected, just as Aristotle stipulated the plot of a drama should
be. Each character plays the role assigned to him, and helps in the general progress of the whole.

Movement of Plot in Tom Jones like that of Comedy

The movement of plot in Tom Jones, follows the curve characteristic of comedy plots. It
takes the protagonist from low fortune to high fortune. ]om comes on the scene as a bastard. His
very earliest activities enforce the universal opinion that he was certainly born to be hanged. His
reputation and his hopes are progressively blackened until he reaches the nadir or lowest
position in London - 'kept' by Lady Bellaston, then accused of murder and thrown in jail, and
finally-as if anything could still be added in the way of blackening, presumptively guilty of
incest with his mother. But the nadir of his fortune also marks its reversal or crisis. As Blifil's
malicious machinations are exposed, so is Tom's true goodness; and his fortune sails to its zenith
of romantic happiness. Tom is proved to be of high birth. He marries the girl of his choice, and
he inherits wealth. This is the general plot-curve, or as Dorothy Van Ghent observes, the
'concave of comic drama'.
Unity Through Moral Vision of the Author
The novel gains in unity through Fielding's moral vision, which governs the whole movement
and design. The subject is human nature and his purpose is three-fold. He wanted to expose the
ugliness of vice and the beauty of virtue, and wanted to convince men that they should follow
the path of virtue and keep clear of vice. He also wanted to show the readers that virtue should
be tempered by discretion. Fielding's purpose is realized as the action of the novel is developed.

The Comic Style: Most Appropriate to Subject

Fielding was writing what he called a 'comic epic in prose'. The style of Tom Jones is
consistently comic, satirical, and especially ironical. The light, gay and humorously ironical
style, is most appropriate to his purpose. It keeps the reader at a suitably detached distance so
that he does not get involved with the characters. He enables the readers to laugh without rancor
at their own follies, which they cannot but recognize in the various characters. The style helps to
point out the follies, but does not condemn. Thus it gives rise to reflection rather than bitter
condemnation.

Blemishes or Shortcomings in the Plot-construction

Tom Jones has been too highly praised by some critics, Coleridge among them, for its
perfection of plot-construction. However, recent critics are not so blindly enthusiastic. They
appreciate the rigorous construction of the novel, but they are not prepared to ignore possible
shortcomings, which are as follows:

(I) Digressions. Modern critics are not very sympathetic towards the two major digressions
in the novel—the Man of the Hill's story and Mrs. Fitzpatrick's account. It has been pointed out
that even these are given symmetrical places by Fielding, in chapters VIII and XI which come
just before and after the middle of the book. Apart from such a symmetrical placing, however,
modern critics fail to see much relevance in these digressions to the movement of the story.
Some explanation is, indeed, offered for these digressions. The story of the Man of the Hill
offers a contrast to Tom and helps to emphasize the sanity of Tom's view of life. Tom has been
as much wronged by others as the Man of the Hill. But Tom presents a healthy attitude in that he
faces life, while the Man of the Hill retires from it. Mrs. Fitzpatrick's account warns Sophia of
the dangers of displaced attachment and run-away marriages. Further, Fielding was avowedly
writing a comic 'epic' in prose, and hence entitled to a few digressions, if they were overtly
related to the main theme. The two major digressions in Tom Jones may not be justifiable to a
great extent in the artistic context, but excuses can be found for them.

The minor digressions such as Tom's watching the puppet show and his meeting with the
gypsies, however, have no excuse, artistic or otherwise. Nor is much use served by his watching
the performance of Hamlet in London. Except for the fact that the gypsy law has some moral
relevance in the context of the novel and that Partridge's remarks in the course of the
performance of Hamlet cause much fun, these digressions cannot be justified and Fielding could
have done without them.

(II) Too Many Neat Coincidences and Chance Appearances. Tom Jones involves
coincidences. Indeed, some of them are too neat to be easily credible. Chance appearances and
meetings are closely involved with the pattern of coincidences in the novel. The assemblage of
the various personages at the Upton Inn, just missing one another, seems difficult to accept. But
then, as one critic has pointed out, such meetings would not be exactly unlikely, because people
running after one another would naturally tend to reach the same place. In the eighteenth
century, with fewer travelers on the road, it would have been easier to follow them from inn to
inn. It is not easy, however, to believe all the chance happenings which help or retard the hero's
progress. Tom comes across the beggar woman who had picked up Sophia's pocket-book, and
then meets the merry gentleman who has seen her go by. In the alehouse, he comes across the
very guide who had directed her to Marsden. Squire Western makes a timely appearance to
rescue Sophia from the unwanted attentions of Lord Fellamar. Fielding tries to give plausible
reasons for this, but we cannot accept the happening so easily. None of the coincidences are
impossible, but they seem improbable. And, as Aristotle said, probable impossibilities are more
acceptable than improbable possibilities in art.

(III) Ending somewhat Abrupt. The ending of the story is somewhat hurried and abrupt.
Quite a few incidents are brought together in a huddle, in the last Books. And Fielding seems to
have been cognizant of the fact himself when he tells the reader:

When thou has perused the many great events which this Book will produce, thou wilt think the
number of pages contained in it scarce sufficient to tell the story. (Book XVIII

The narrative is rather compressed and confusedly put together in the last pages. Though
there are no loose ends left, nothing left unaccounted for or undetermined; though the
appropriate rewards and punishments have been doled out to the various characters, it is all done
in a hurried manner.

Conclusion
Blemishes notwithstanding, Tom Jones remains one of the masterpieces of architectural
construction of plot The masterly skill with which the suspense of Tom's real birth is kept up, is
remarkable. Yet, all preceding details before the disclosure are consistent with and even
suggestive of the correct conclusion. The plot of Tom Jones, then, is well-constructed, as far as
possible in keeping with limits of probability. It is unified, complete and, if not as perfect as
Coleridge's praise seems to indicate, good enough to be called a plot of rigorous construction.
Fielding was quite a successful artist as far as plot-construction is concerned.

Critics have generally appreciated Fielding's skill at plot construction. Arnold Kettle,
though, feels that "in Tom Jones, there is too much plot." He goes on to observe "Scenes take
place which do not arise inevitably from character and motive." But most other critics call the
plot of Tom Jones, excellent. Says Wilbtir L. Cross, "To take thus the most interesting
experiences of a lifetime and adjust them, without the perversion of their essential truth to the
requirements of a rather intricate plot, was an artistic triumph of the first order. No one had ever
done that before in a novel." Edwin Muir calls the plot of Tom Jones "an adroitly constructed
framework for a picture of life, rather than an unfolding action."
Prefatory Chapters: Initial Essays &
Incidental Comments in Tom Jones
Introduction
Fielding intended that his novel should furnish not merely entertainment, but
also instruction. He deliberately used it as a vehicle for the expression of his artistic
and moral ideas and ideals. These explanations he put forward, partly in 'initial
essays' prefixed to the several books, and partly in shorter comments interjected,
when suitable opportunities occurred, into the narrative.

THE INITIAL ESSAYS

The regular insertion of an essay, at the commencement of each division of the
work, is a peculiarity of Tom Jones.

The prefatory chapters have, for the most part, no organic connection with the
chapters which follow in Tom Jones. Fielding compared them with prologues to
plays. Just as prologues were, as a rule, so slightly connected with the dramas
which they prefaced that the prologue to any one play could just as well serve for
any other; so, said he, most of the initial chapters might as properly be prefixed to
any other book in this history as to that which they introduce, or indeed to any
other history as to this. The majority of them are, in fact, independent dissertations,
which can be taken out of their places and rearranged in any order, or even without
injury to the story, though not without loss of pleasure and profit to the reader—
omitted altogether. Pierre Antodine dela Place, in his French abridgement of Tom
Jones, did actually cut them out, with two exceptions. It seems probable that
Fielding deferred the composition of the greater number until almost the last, when
the main narrative was already practically completed.

In these polished miniature essays, Fielding expounded some of his views on

literature and life.

The observations of a great novelist on the subject of his art are naturally of
special interest and the student of literature may possibly regard the essay on this
topic as the most valuable and important. Fielding claimed to be the founder of a
new province of writing, which he named 'prosaic-comic-epic', or the 'heroic,
historical prosaic poem'. In Joseph Andrews, he had described the general
character of this new species; but he deemed it desirable in Tom Jones to offer some
additional comments and explanations.
The Art of Novel Writing
At the outset, he emphasizes the point that the writer of a comic prose epic has
his rough materials provided for him in. the actual facts of human nature. He does
not invent them out of his own brain as does the fanciful romance writer; he
discovers them already existing in the world about him. Hence his work had better
not be called a 'romance'; it rather resembles a 'history'. For just as the historian
draws his materials from authoritative records, so a writer of the new fiction draws
his materials from an authoritative source, namely, ''the vast authentic doomsday
book of nature". The materials are then supplied; but they still need to be artfully
'dressed up' for the reader. And for a proper and judicious dealing with them, two
principles are laid down. The first is the Principle of Selection. The good fiction-
writer must, on no account, imitate the method of some 'painful and voluminous'
historians, who consider themselves obliged to chronicle all happenings, important
or unimportant, with equal fullness whose histories, indeed, 'resemble a
newspaper; which consist of just the same number of words, whether there be any
news in it or not'. On the contrary, he must practise the sagacious selection
recommended by Horace, passing over commonplace and insignificant matters,
and reporting those alone which are sufficiently curious or momentous to merit a
place in his history. The second principle is the Principle of Lively and Varied.
Presentation. A monotonous record of facts and events is inevitably boring. The
story-writer, therefore, should seize every opportunity to include in his narrative
'sundry similes, descriptions, and their kind of poetical embellishments.

Four Major Qualifications of a Novelist

For successful composition of the new style of fiction an author must possess,
according to Fielding, four major qualifications. The first is Genius, which is
defined as 'that power, or rather those powers of the mind, which are capable of
penetrating into all things within our reach and knowledge, and of distinguishing
their essential differences'. The second requisite is Learning, without the
assistance of which 'nothing pure, nothing correct, can genius produce'. The third
qualification is Conversation, or personal experience of men and women, for a
sound knowledge of human nature cannot be acquired from books. It can be
obtained only by direct personal intercourse—not with one class only or one
particular social type but with 'all ranks and degrees of men'. The fourth
qualification of the good fiction-writer is Sympathy, Sensibility, or the Feeling
Heart. Neither gemus, nor learning, nor experience, nor all three together, can rise
the writer to the very highest level, unless he possesses this quality also. The noble
passions-particularly love, generosity, pity-can be adequately described only by
one who is himself susceptible to such emotions.
 In the new realistic fiction it is by no means necessary that the characters and
incidents should be trite and commonplace—such as might be met with "in the
home articles of a newspaper" The author should rather endeavour to interest his
readers by relating what is marvellous and surprising.

Law of Credibility in the Novel

To safeguard the credibility of the story, three rules must be observed. The first
is the 'Rule of Possibility'. Nothing should be related which is beyond the range of
human capacity. Supernatural agencies should be eliminated. Even ghosts should
be seldom, if at all, introduced. Miracles are banned. All the occurrences described
must be capable of being explained as the effects of natural causes. The second rule
is the 'Rule of Probability'. While it is admitted that many improbable things have
happened, and do happen, in real life—things which are sufficiently attested by
evidence, and which a historian of public transaction is consequently justified in
recording—yet the novel-writer, if he would avoid 'that incredulous hatred
mentioned by Horace', had better refrain from introducing such matters into his
narrative. In his characterization also he would be wise not to picture persons of
extraordinary goodness or extraordinary wickedness.

Principle of Plagiarism
Among other initial essays dealing with literary topics, there is one in which
Fielding defines his attitude with regard to plagiarism. He maintains that a modern
author is at liberty to appropriate the good things of an old master, without mention
of the source from which he has taken them; but denies that he has a right to pilfer
anything from the work of a contemporary without acknowledgement. To this
principle he claims to have himself most scrupulously adhered. In another paper,
he launches an attack on literary critics for having arrogantly assumed a
'dictatorial power'. Instead of merely formulating the laws in accordance with
which Writers of genius plied their craft, they had ventured to invent laws and to
impose them peremptorily on writers. Nor, in construction of these laws, had they
shown discretion.

His Dissertation on Love

There is a notable dissertation on the nature of Love. Leaving out of account that
capricious youthful sentiment which is sometimes improperly called love—'the
idle and childish liking' of boys and girls, which is often fixed on outside only, and
on things of 'little value and no duration'—Fielding emphasizes the distinction
between lust and love. The former is simply 'the desire of satisfying a voracious
appetite with a certain quantify of delicate white human flesh'. It might well be
called hunger for a lustful man hungers after a woman in just the same way as a
glutton hungers after a sirloin of beef, or an epicure hungers after choice food. This
passionate hunger may be very violent for a while, but, like every other kind of
hunger, it naturally ceases when it has been satisfied. Love, on the other hand, in
its widest sense (e.g. love of parents, love of children, love of friends, love of
mankind), is a kind and benevolent disposition, which is gratified by contributing
to the happiness of others,' and indeed finds 'a great and exquisite delight in
promoting their well being. Love, in the narrower sense of a special attachment
between a man and a woman, is, in substance, this same benevolent disposition,
with amorous desire added. But since delight in making a dear person happy is the
substance of love, while desire, inspired by that person's youth and beauty, is only
an accompaniment, love can survive in a good mind, after youth and beauty, and
the amorous desires which they provoke, have passed away.

His Attitude Towards Human Weakness

Another essay, headed "A Comparison between the World and the Stage",
illustrates Fielding's tolerant attitude towards human weaknesses and
shortcomings. It is pointed out that, as on the stage actors often play bad or foolish
parts, without being personally bad or foolish, so in the world-theatre men
sometimes act ill parts and play the fool egregiously, without being essentially
detestable or contemptible. A single bad act no more constitutes a villain in life,
than a single bad part on the stage. The passions, like the managers of a playhouse,
often force men upon parts, without consulting their judgement, and sometimes
without any regard to their talents. Thus the man, as well as the players may
condemn what he himself acts. The moral of which is that sweeping and
indiscriminate reprobation of those who admittedly lapse into errors, should be
avoided.

His Estimate of Aristocratic Society

Lastly, Fielding's estimate of aristocratic society is worthy of attention. He
acknowledged, indeed, that the members of the highest class were elegant and
refined and possessed 'a liberality of Spirit' that was scarcely ever seen in 'men of
low birth and education'. But their 'politeness' was vitiated by affectation.

What Pope says of women is very applicable to most in this station, who are'
indeed, so entirely made up of form and affectation that they have no character at
all, at least, none which appears. "I will venture to say that the highest life is such
the dullest, and affords very little humour or entertainment. Here, except among
the few who have a relish for pleasure, all is vanity and servile imitation. Dressing
and cards, eating and drinking, bowing and curtseying, make up the business of
their lives.”

Yet, though Fielding deemed contemporary high society to the futile and silly,
he did not regard it as exceptionally profligate. "In my humble opinion, the true
characteristic of the present beau monde is rather folly than vice, and the only
epithet which it deserves is that of frivolous". The leniency of this judgement is
rather remarkable since in his later writings Fielding paints the highest class in
the darkest colours—as thoroughly selfish, dissolute and corrupt, and actually
responsible, to no small extent, for the general demoralization of the community.

Views of Critics
Enough has been said to indicate the quality of these excellent introductory
essays. It need only be added that two critics of distinction—Sir Walter Scott and
George Eliot—have borne testimony to their interest and value. "Fielding", wrote
Scott, "considered his work as an experiment in British literature and therefore he
chose to prefix a preliminary chapter to each book, explanatory of his own views
and of the rules attached to this mode of composition. Those critical introductions,
which rather interrupt the course of the story and the flow of the interest at the first
perusal, are found on a second or third the most entertaining chapters of the whole
work". George Eliot, for her part, evinced high appreciation of Fielding's "copious
remarks and digressions, and especially of those initial chapters to the successive
books of his history where he seems to bring his arm-chair to the proscenium and
chat with us in all the lastly ease of his fine English".

THE INCIDENTAL COMMENTS IN TOM JONES

It is not only in the initial essays that Fielding addressed his readers in propria
persona. Even in the body of the novel he refused to efface himself. Throughout the
entire drama which he presents, we are perpetually conscious of his presence in
the background and every now and then, when the humour takes him, he stops the
action altogether, steps forward to the front, and agreeably descants—on the
characters, on the incidents, on the moral lessons to be drawn, on particular details,
and on things in general. He compared himself, indeed, with the chorus of the old
Greek comedy, whose function was to voice the poets comments on the
transactions exhibited on the stage. Nor was he doubtful about the propriety of such
parabases. The interpolation of direct communications to the reader into the main
current of the narrative was actually a part of his deliberately formed plan.
 Under the last heading, we find a large number of acute observations or short
disquisitions on the variuos subjects. A bare enumeration will give some idea of the
multiplicity and multifariousness of the topics dealt with. In the course of a single
novel, Fielding offers remarks, usually short but sometimes extended, on the
following—on compliance under protest; on the cruellest kind of ingratitude; on
centres of gossip; on the pleasure of tormenting one's partner in marriage; on the
overlooking disposition; on the divergent diagnoses of physicians; on 'Preservers
of the game'; on the exposure of fake professions of morality and religion; on the
importance of prudence and circumspection.

The incidental comments occur more frequently in the earlier Books of Tom
Jones than in the later, when Fielding was in a hurry to get his work finished. They
are also very considerable in value, perhaps the most interesting are those on the
importance of prudence, on the function of conscience, on true wisdom, and on the
sanguine temper. But apart from individual examples, the collection, as a whole, is
important in affording us insight into the mind of the novelist.

The utterances attributed to characters in the story may, or may not, express the
opinions and sentiments of the author; but no doubt can arise in connection with
the declarations which he makes in his own person. In these direct
communications, Fielding frankly reveals himself. Through them, we enjoy the
privilege of being brought, as it were, into contact with a man of the finest
intellectual calibre—a man observant, reflective, humorous, tolerant, humane—
above all, a man endowed with a profound understanding of human nature such
as has seldom been equalled and never surpassed by an English fiction-writer.
 THE HISTORY OF TOM JONES, A FOUNDLING
(HENRY F IELDING)
,.
“ ‘he winding labyrinths of nature’:
he Labyrinth and Providential Order in
Tom Jones”
by Anthony W. Lee,
Kentucky Wesleyan College

in the cluster of stories surrounding the Greek myth of the laby-

rinth, King Minos of Crete charges the brilliant inventor Daedalus
to construct an elaborate labyrinth to house the Minotaur, the half-
human, half-bull monstrosity produced by the illicit union between
Minos’s queen, Pasiphaë, and a beautiful, snow-white bull given to
Minos by Poseidon, god of the sea. he Athenian hero heseus, with
the assistance of Minos’s daughter, Ariadne, destroys this creature in its
lair. Later, Daedalus constructs wings for himself and his son, icarus, to
escape from Minos’s enforced captivity at Crete, an event resulting in
the unfortunate death of icarus when he lies too near the sun:

Grown wild, and wanton, more embolden’d lies

Far from his guide, and soars among the skies,
he soft’ning wax, that felt a nearer sun,
Dissolv’d apace, and soon began to run (Ovid 250).

As a classically trained scholar who made frequent references

to Greek and Roman authors in his writing, Henry Fielding would

57
58 Henry Fielding

have been well aware of the labyrinth myth. in the midst of his
1749 masterpiece, Tom Jones—a novel that literary scholar Leopold
Damrosch has characterized as “the greatest single literary work of the
eighteenth century” (221)—Fielding pauses to say:

First, Genius; thou gift of Heaven; without whose Aid in vain

we struggle against the Stream of nature. hou, who dost
sow the generous Seeds which Art nourishes, and brings to
Perfection. Do thou kindly take me by the Hand, and lead
me through all the Mazes, the winding Labyrinths of nature.
initiate me into all those Mysteries which profane eyes never
beheld. teach me, which to thee is no diicult task, to know
Mankind better than they know themselves. Remove that Mist
which dims the intellects of Mortals, and causes them to adore
Men for their Art, or to detest them for their Cunning, in
deceiving others, when they are, in Reality, the Objects only of
Ridicule, for deceiving themselves. Strip of the thin Disguise
of Wisdom from Self-Conceit, of Plenty from Avarice, and
of Glory from Ambition. Come, thou that hast inspired
thy Aristophanes, thy Lucian, thy Cervantes, thy Rabelais, thy
Molière, thy Shakespear, thy Swift, thy Marivaux, ill my Pages
with Humour; ’till Mankind learn the Good-nature to laugh
only at the Follies of others, and the Humility to grieve at their
own (Fielding 443-44).

his is an extraordinarily rich passage, one that can serve as a “key” to

unlock many critically important elements of Tom Jones and to ulti-
mately understand the book’s labyrinthine qualities.
Falling at the center of the prefatory chapter to book thirteen, this
passage is written in the voice of Fielding’s governing narrative persona.
Formally, it is a parodic epic invocation, a textual maneuver reminding
the reader of the epic tradition underpinning Tom Jones and especially
recalling the Miltonic invocations in books one, three, and seven of
Paradise Lost. Structurally, this chapter occupies a crucial position. it
introduces the inal six books of the novel, which themselves form
a unit containing the climax of the entire narrative. Furthermore, it
marks an important liminal point: the transition between the rural
setting of the previous twelve books and the bustling London world
 he History of tom Jones, a Foundling 59

tom will enter in the following chapter. Congruent with this pivotal
structural position, a number of important thematic points inform the
passage, points that are briely enumerated here but will be more fully
developed later in this essay. One point is Fielding’s plea for a guide,
or “Genius,” to help track the labyrinth. Like Milton in Paradise Lost,
who issues similar pleas, Fielding’s request is granted and hence he
in turn becomes the Genuis who guides the reader through the laby-
rinth of Tom Jones—something that ultimately intimates the notion
of Fielding as a Daedalus igure. he phrase “the winding Labyrinths
of nature” contains a double signiicance. On one hand it can refer
to the narrative structure and complexity of the book itself. On the
other it can refer to the goal of wisdom and moral improvement that
this structure seeks to divulge, the labyrinthine “Mysteries” associated
with knowing “Mankind better than they know themselves.” Finally,
the list of satirical works and authors the narrator invokes at the end
of the passage hints at the subterranean intertextual complexity of
Fielding’s narrative.
A major implication of Fielding’s adaptation of the labyrinth
narrative paradigm lies in his authorial assumption of the role of
Daedalus. Daedalus, of course, created the Cretan labyrinth, and
Fielding, as author, analogically occupies the role of Daedalus as the
constructor of his ictional ediice, Tom Jones. Fielding self-consciously
embraced this inventive role in the manifesto of his “modern” iction
found in his earlier novel, Joseph Andrews:

now a comic Romance is a comic epic-Poem in Prose;

difering from Comedy, as the serious epic from tragedy; its
Action being more extended and comprehensive; containing
a much larger Circle of incidents, and introducing a greater
Variety of Characters (Fielding, x).

Fielding also echoes this observation in Tom Jones when he refers to

this novel as “prosaic-comi-epic Writing” (137). he attentive reader
will not miss the veiled allusion to the properties of the labyrinth in
the formal shape suggested by the “larger Circle of incidents” and the
involved intricacy of “greater Variety of Characters.” Furthermore,
the passage betrays Fielding’s adoption of the Daedalus role, with its
emphasis upon newness, upon diference from earlier generic models
60 Henry Fielding

of literature. While he holds allegiance to the Augustan neoclassicist

program, Fielding is also aware that he is fabricating something quite
new, the novel, with all the connotations of novelty that the word
invites.
in Tom Jones, Fielding’s embrace of innovation and novelty
particularly emerges in the self-consciously ostentatious narra-
tive voice he assumes. each of the eighteen books is headed by an
introductory chapter, in which Fielding foregrounds his authorial
presence and narrative manipulation. He encourages, teases, cajoles,
lectures, scolds, and seduces his reader in a protean variety of guises,
such that his authorial persona itself becomes a major character in
the novel. in this respect he occupies multiple roles that are analo-
gous to diferent characters in the Greek myth. in the following
comment, Fielding’s narrative “character” embraces the role of the
authoritarian dictator Minos: “For as i am, in reality, the Founder
of a new Province of Writing, so i am at liberty to make what Laws
i please therein. And these Laws, my Readers, whom i consider as
my Subjects, are bound to believe and obey. . . .” (Fielding 53). but
he is also an Ariadne, in that his numerous dispensations of advice,
hints, and clues prepare the reader not only to enter the labyrinth
but also to emerge from it victoriously. Fielding’s thread, however,
becomes more subtle as the narrative progresses. As he tells us in
book 11, chapter 9: “. . . for thou art highly mistaken if thou dost
imagine that we intended, when we began this great Work, to leave
thy Sagacity nothing to do; or that, without sometimes exercising
this talent, thou wilt be able to travel through our Pages with any
Pleasure or Proit to thyself” (397). While Fielding’s narrative voice
ultimately emerges as the “Genius” who leads the reader “through
all the Mazes, the winding Labyrinths of nature,” it also is a genius
that teaches and guides the reader. hus Tom Jones is as much about
the reader’s education as that of its titular character, tom: it consti-
tutes a synthetic combination of a heuristic manual of ethics and an
epistemological treatise. Like Alexander Pope’s Essay on Man and
John Locke’s Essay Concerning Human Understanding, Tom Jones
is concerned with the foundations and limits of human knowing.
Fielding, however, approaches such inquiries from a pragmatic and
immediately experiential frame of view rather than an austerely
philosophical one.
 he History of tom Jones, a Foundling 61

First-time readers of Tom Jones may be permitted the impres-

sion that they have stumbled into not a labyrinth but a maze. Recent
commentators have made a careful distinction between the two
(Artress 50-51; MacQueen 13-20). Labyrinths are archetypal struc-
tures dating back at least 3,500 years and evident in numerous global
cultures. Mazes are of more recent vintage, irst appearing some 600
years ago in the landscape hedges of the european aristocracy. Laby-
rinths are unicursal; that is, they have one well-deined path. Mazes
are multicursal, with many entrances and exits. Mazes are intention-
ally confusing, possessing numerous blind spots, dead ends, and cul-
de-sacs, whereas labyrinths have a clearly deined beginning, middle,
and end. Mazes are puzzles, challenging the individual’s ingenuity,
while labyrinths ofer a secure, assured outcome, given that one stays
on the proper path. if the maze emblemizes the messy, complicated
secular world of individualism and competition, the labyrinth patterns
a universe warmly sufused with a harmony, order, and certainty
conferred by a benevolent, providential divinity.
Tom Jones possesses elements of both the maze and the laby-
rinth, as Fielding’s remark suggests: “Do thou kindly take me by the
Hand, and lead me through all the Mazes, the winding Labyrinths
of nature.” he voluminous length of Fielding’s great novel, the
explosive congestion of its numerous characters, events, and places,
and its leisurely suspension of its ultimate resolution, may contribute
to the reader’s disorientation. However, this perception is misleading.
Like the great labyrinth at the Chartres Cathedral, Tom Jones, despite
its deceptive local deployments of smoke and mirrors, follows with
deliberate and precise resolution a single, true line tracing the move-
ment from darkness to illumination, from confusing “Mysteries”
toward intellectual and spiritual clarity. it intentionally disorients its
reader, only to loosen him or her from the distractions of everyday
life, thereby identifying and recommending a higher apprehension
of wisdom. he narrative epicenter of Fielding’s book, the center of
the labyrinth, leads the careful reader into not only a glorious narra-
tive climax but also initiates him or her into a fresh way of looking at
human existence.
Many have written on the narrative structure of Tom Jones and
its labyrinthine dimensions, where “the greatest events are produced
by a nice [“accurate in judgment to minute exactness” (Johnson)]
62 Henry Fielding

“train of little Circumstances” (Fielding 597). Most famous of these

is Samuel taylor Coleridge, who observed a few weeks before his
death, “What a master of composition Fielding was! Upon my word,
i think the Oedipus Tyrannus, he Alchemist, and Tom Jones, the three
most perfect plots ever planned” (Coleridge 672). More recently,
critics have endeavored to elucidate this perfection. R.S. Crane has
written an inluential essay applying Aristotelian principles derived
from the Poetics to the novel, inding within its plot a “total system
of actions, moving by probable or necessary connections from begin-
ning, through middle, to end” (Crane 689). Another important
essay, Frederick Hilles’s “Art and Artiice in Tom Jones,” inds an
emblematic pattern shaped like “a Palladian mansion” relecting a
“mathematical exactitude” (Hilles 786). Hilles identiies an intri-
cately precise machinery dividing the novel into three major sections
(books 1-6, 7-12, and 13-18), each of which is dominated by a single
setting (Somerset, the open road, and London, respectively) and a
major female character (Molly, Mrs. Waters, and Lady bellaston,
respectively). inside of these three units are various structural subdi-
visions that contribute to the rich architectonic integrity of the
book. Hilles’s analysis convincingly demonstrates that, by virtue of
its structural clarity and cohesiveness, Tom Jones, far from being a
maze, is a deliberately constructed labyrinth. but the most fruitful
way to analyze and understand the labyrinthine lucidity of Tom Jones
emerges from the application of the heroic-quest model inluentially
articulated by Joseph Campbell.
in his classic study he Hero with a housand Faces, Campbell
analyzes the Cretan labyrinth story, deriving from it, as well as
numerous other literary and mythological sources, a basic ur-narra-
tive of the heroic quest, which consists of three stages: departure,
fulillment, and return (Campbell 36). in the irst stage, the hero
departs from his or her everyday, familiar existence. For tom, this
occurs within the irst section of Hilles’s tripartite pattern, when he is
expelled from the edenic Paradise Hall and is violently separated from
his beloved, Sophia. he second phase, a journey or quest in search of
fulillment, is located in the second part of Hilles’s pattern, when tom
is on the road, in books 7-12. his part of the sequence is marked by
encounters designed to instruct the hero: a series of trials, tribulations,
losses, gains, and temptations that simultaneously impede and enrich
 he History of tom Jones, a Foundling 63

the hero’s experience. he inal phase, the culmination of the journey

in a personally transformative experience, is the fulillment—be it
moral, spiritual, or pragmatic—followed by the return of the hero
to his or her point of origination, in order to bestow the “boon,” the
lesson learned from the quest, to the rest of the community.
tom’s departure and quest clearly correspond to Campbell’s
paradigm. After his involuntary expulsion, tom must overcome
obstacles of poverty, the elements, menacing blocking agents, temp-
tations (especially those of the feminine sort), and so forth. he most
intriguing aspect of the application of Campbell’s scheme to Tom
Jones, however, involves tom’s moment of fulillment. An under-
standing of this pivotal moment will go a long way toward providing
ultimate interpretation of the novel.
his fulillment occurs in the prison scene (book 18, chapter 2),
which is both the narrative and thematic climax of the novel. Here
tom’s quest reaches an apparent dead-end, as his life reaches an
absolute nadir. He is in prison for stabbing a man with a sword in
a dispute over a woman. His beloved Sophia has rejected him after
learning of his afair with a lady of fashion. His dubious behavior has
alienated him from most of his family and friends. On top of all this
comes even more devastating news:

“i hope, sir,” said Partridge, “you will not be angry with me.
indeed i did not listen, but i was obliged to stay in the outward
Room. i am sure i wish i had been a hundred Miles of, rather
than have heard what i have heard.” “Why, what is the Matter?”
said Jones. “he Matter, Sir? O good Heaven!” answered
Partridge, “was that Woman who is just gone out the Woman
who was with you at Upton?” “She was, Partridge,” cried Jones.
“And did you really, Sir, go to bed with that Woman?” said he,
trembling.—“i am afraid what past between us is no Secret,”
said Jones.—“nay, but pray, sir, for Heaven’s sake, sir, answer
me,” cries Partridge. “you know i did,” cries Jones.—“Why
then, the Lord have Mercy upon your Soul, and forgive you,”
cries Partridge; “but as sure as i stand here alive, you have been
a bed with your own Mother.”
Upon these Words Jones became in a Moment a greater
Picture of Horror than Partridge himself. He was, indeed, for
64 Henry Fielding

some time struck dumb with Amazement, and both stood

staring wildly at each other (Fielding 596).

Physically enclosed by the stone walls of the prison, tom has entered
what Campbell calls the belly of the whale, based upon the biblical
story of Jonah. Additionally, tom has arrived at the center of the
labyrinth. but here the Minotaur is not an externally menacing
monster; rather tom is forced to face his own misdeeds, his own
character failings. in Fielding’s retelling of the myth, the Minotaur
is tom’s shadow self, a coalescent formation of the hidden, darker
recesses of his psyche that he has hitherto refused to acknowledge.
it is only when he can confront his repressed self that he can truly
begin to grow into the complete, organically whole identity that it
is his quest to reveal and become. Campbell notes that this culmi-
nating moment “is a form of self-annihilation. . . . but here, instead
of passing outward, beyond the conines of the visible world, the
hero goes inward, to be born again” (Campbell 91). he appalling
prospect of having committed maternal incest (which we later learn
is untrue) jolts tom out of moral complacency and self-delusion.
in Aristotelian terms, this is the moment of “anagnorisis,” or self-
discovery. tom, inally seeing himself as he truly is, is given the
opportunity to abandon his old ways and re-emerge into a new,
more evolved self. his moment of self-discovery and rebirth corre-
sponds at the plot level to the “peripeteia,” or sudden reversal of
fortune.
From this point on, things begin to dramatically improve for
tom. He quickly reconciles with the center of moral gravitas in the
novel, Squire Allworthy, is soon reinstalled in Paradise Hall (this time
as master, rather than an adopted underling), and is happily married
to Sophia—whose allegorical name etymologically derives from the
Greek σοϕια, through the Latin sophia, meaning “wisdom.” Jones
has acquired the wisdom that constitutes the goal of his quest. He has
successfully threaded the labyrinth and gained his boon:

Whatever in the nature of Jones had a tendency to Vice, has

been corrected by continual Conversation with this good Man
[Squire Allworthy], and by his Union with the lovely and
virtuous Sophia. He hath also, by Relexion on his past Follies,
 he History of tom Jones, a Foundling 65

acquired a Discretion and Prudence very uncommon in one of

his lively Parts (Fielding 641).

he monosyllabic simplicity of tom Jones’s name suggests that

he, too, is an allegorical character, an everyman igure that Fielding
intends the reader to identify with. tom’s heroic quest, his threading
of the labyrinth, thus ofers a paradigmatic map urging the reader to
explore similar possibilities in his or her own life—to acquire what
Martin battestin has identiied as the central thematic message of
Tom Jones, “prudence”: “the supreme virtue of the Christian humanist
tradition, entailing knowledge and discipline of the self and the
awareness that our lives, ultimately, are shaped not by circumstances,
but by reason and the will” (“Fielding’s Deinition of Wisdom”
738). in addition to this ethical dimension, the pristine clarity and
symmetry of the plot suggest Fielding’s use of the labyrinth to unfold
a providential view of reality, a metaphysical world order where good
is ultimately rewarded, evil found out and punished, and where,
despite the appearance of untidy variegation, certainty and harmony
prevail. to borrow from the language of Fielding’s contemporary
acquaintance, Alexander Pope, Tom Jones is “A mighty maze! but not
without a plan” (Pope, 11).
in the early 1960s, a survey of American undergraduate college
students identiied Tom Jones as the most overrated classic in the
Western canon. in 1990, the editors of the canon-defending Great
Books of the Western World dropped Tom Jones from its ranks, 42 years
after its initial inclusion. And recently Tom Jones was purged from
the Literature Humanities reading list at Columbia University—the
list that, dating back to the 1920s, formed the original catalyst of
the Great books program. On the face of it, these events might
portend the dwindling of Tom Jones’s critical reputation. neverthe-
less, the novel continues to attract many advocates. Kingsley Amis,
most famous for his novel Lucky Jim—a book possessing wickedly
mischievous satire worthy of Fielding’s art—ofers in a later novel this
observation, pronounced in the voice of a character standing before
Fielding’s Lisbon grave:

Perhaps it was worth dying in your forties if two hundred years

later you were the only non-contemporary novelist who could
66 Henry Fielding

be read with unafected interest, the only one who never had to
be apologised for or excused on the grounds of changing taste
(Amis 185).

Despite any ostensible drop in contemporary prestige, Tom Jones

itself remains its inest recommendation. if, in an age when the
mass media has shortened the attention span of many, the spacious
capacity of Tom Jones—a tome requiring weeks of careful, sustained
perusal—appears forbidding, few labyrinthine novels will better
repay the reader’s attention. Tom Jones is a great novel because of the
pungent earthiness of its humor, because of its unlinching embrace
of the realities of human experience, both light and dark, because
of its satirical penetration into social corruption, and because of its
enduring grasp of the deep essentials of human psychology. hese
qualities make Tom Jones an inexhaustible text; its concerns are our
concerns, and we cannot help but be absorbed by Fielding’s darkly
bittersweet, but ultimately airmative, observations upon our shared
human condition.

WORKS CITED AND

SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER READING
Amis, Kingsley. I Like It Here. new york: Harcourt brace, 1958.
Artress, Lauren. Walking a Sacred Path: Rediscovering the Labyrinth as a Spiritual
Tool. new york: Riverhead, 1995.
baker, ernest A. “Tom Jones.” he History of the English Novel, Vol. 4. new york:
barnes and noble, 1936, 1968. 123–54.
battestin, Martin C. A Henry Fielding Companion. Westport Conn.:
Greenwood, 2000.
———. “Fielding’s Deinition of Wisdom: Some Functions of Ambiguity and
emblem in Tom Jones.” English Literary History 35 (1968): 188–217;
reprinted in Tom Jones, ed. Sheridan baker: 733–49.
———. he Moral Basis of Fielding’s Art: A Study of Joseph Andrews.
Middletown, Conn.: Wesleyan UP, 1959.
———. he Providence of Wit. Oxford: Clarendon P, 1974.
———. Twentieth-Century Interpretations of Tom Jones. englewood Clifs, n.J.:
Prentice-Hall, 1968.
Tom Jones: A Unheroic Hero - Explain
Tom Jones: A Foundling and an Illegitimate Child. The very beginning of the
novel sets a note which strikes the reader as being different from the conventional
romances, which had hitherto been written. Tom's introduction to the reader
comes when he is discovered in Allworthy's bed. He is a foundlings; and the
comment from Mrs. Deborah Wilkins is worth noting:

"It goes against me to touch these misbegotten wretches, whom, I don't look upon
as my fellow creatures. Faugh! how it stinks! It doth not smell like a Christian."

Apart from the obvious satire against the so-called Christian moral code, we
realize that we are meeting an entirely new kind of hero. It is the 'unheroic' hero.
As Tom grows older, the unheroic aspect seems to be emphasised. We are told that
many people thought that he was "born to be hanged". He has good intentions but
completely lacks prudence.

Ordinary Man with Ordinary Human Weakness. Fielding was writing a comic
novel. His characters are all ordinary human beings. What is more, as an author he
accepted the ordinary weaknesses of men and women of this world. None of his
characters are paragons of virtue, because no one on this earth is like that. Tom is
a human being, and as such, cannot be perfect. He certainly has his weaknesses.
He represents, like most of Fielding's characters, a healthy and realistic mixture of
virtue and vice.

Tom's Weakness: Vulnerability in the Face of Female Charm. The weakness,

which shocked most of Fielding's contemporaries, was Tom's vulnerability as far
as sex was concerned. He shows an amazing willingness to jump into bed with any
female who appears to be inviting enough. He falls in love with Molly Seagrim, the
gamekeeper's daughter. Carried off by her charms, he is easily seduced by her. One
has to admit that she is the more experienced partner. He develops a passion for
Sophia. Here, however, one notes that Tom is capable of experiencing a moral
dilemma—he cannot be accused of total immorality. He is capable of feeling
responsible for some one to whom he thinks he owes loyalty. He tries to resist
Sophia's charms because he owes something to Molly. However, the situation
reveals the disordered state of Tom's mind. Though ultimately he is freed of Molly
because of the discovery of Square in her room, and the fact that the possible father
of her child is Will Barnes, it cannot be gainsaid that Tom went initially to her room
with the purpose of buying her off. His original purpose was to offer money to Molly
in return for freedom. It shows a curious confusion of moral thoughts and feelings.
The state of Tom's fallibility has been portrayed very neatly and accurately by
Fielding.
 Tom is a naturally boisterous and gay lad. Allworthy's recovery from illness
sends Tom to celebrate, and his animal instincts come to the fore. He is, as yet, not
aware of how to control these impulses with prudence. He gets drunk. He meditates
on the charms of Sophia and vows that he would not fall prey to any other woman's
charms. Indeed, he declares himself incapable of appreciating the charms of any
other woman. Almost immediately, he sees Molly, who is sweaty and coarsely
dressed, and retires gratefully behind some bushes with her. So much for the high
ideals expressed a little while earlier. It is a deflation which would not have been
thrust on the conventional hero. Tom is certainly an 'unheroic hero' though all the
more human for that.

Tom's involvement at Upton Inn with Mrs. Waters is once again more of a
seduction by an experienced woman. But it is Tom's susceptibility or weakness,
which leads him into indiscretion. It is true that his succumbing to Mrs. Waters
comes at a time when he has almost given up the hope of gaining Sophia. However,
Fielding does not condone his weakness, nor does he expect the reader to do so. But
he does not condemn it either. He wants to portray the weakness as something of
which human beings are capable. In London, Tom allows himself to become a 'kept'
man by Lady Bellaston. He takes money for favours given. There are some
extenuating circumstances, but Fielding does not completely exonerate Tom.

Curious Mixture of Indiscretion and Moral Impulses. Tom embodies a curious

mixture of indiscretion and moral impulses. He lies — and lying is, indeed, a vice.
But then, he lies in order to save Black George. He sells his horse and his Bible, but
again, it is to save the gamekeeper's family from financial worry. He is determined
to keep intact Sophia's hundred-pound bill but does not scruple to accept money
from Lady Bellaston. In order to get in touch with Sophia, he is ready to indulge
Lady Bellaston's sexual whims. And the money he gets from Lady Bellaston, Tom
gives to relieve the family of the poor relative of Mrs. Miller. All this speaks of a
disordered state of mind in which a confusion of values exists. Tom has to learn
how to temper his good impulses with discretion and prudence. He has to gain
control over his exuberance and warmth of heart. But it is obvious that his
character is not in keeping with the conventional romance hero who is always and
completely noble.

Are Tom's Virtues the Vices of a Truly Noble Man? Though Tom's actions are
doubtful if considered from a purely moral point of view, it is not possible to agree
with Richardson's rather stringent and uncompromising opinion that Tom's
virtues are the vices of a truly noble man. Courage is a virtue in itself, and Tom does
not lack in it, whether physical or moral. He shows physical courage in dealing
with the highwayman and the assailants of the Man of the Hill. Physical courage
bespeaks a moral courage. It is what leads him to lie for the sake of Black George in
the face of dire consequences to himself. It is only a rigid and unflexible moralist,
who is too much of a theorist to appreciate practical aspects of human behaviour,
who can condemn the basic goodness of impulse behind Tom's trivial moral
shortcomings.

As far as sexual aberrations are concerned, Tom certainly requires some

censure. Extenuating circumstances apart, we are also shown that Tom does
achieve some kind of self-realization by the end of the novel. Besides, his sexual
adventures are a part of his carefree, animal spirits, which are closely connected
with his warmth of heart and his curious idea of gallantry to women. He has to
learn to combine his warmth of heart with discretion. He has to realise that animal
spirits have to be given a proper direction and tempered with intelligence and
prudence. Self-realization of Tom. It is true that we are not shown the inner
workings of the characters in Tom Jones. The treatment is external. As such, we
have to depend upon what the author, with his omniscience, tells us. By the end of
the novel, Tom's own words and Fielding's comments as narrator tell us that Tom
has arrived at self-realization. He has always felt his unworthiness as far as Sophia
is concerned. He admits that his downfall is the result of his own actions, and not
those of Blifil. He writes a touching letter to Sophia, confessing his feelings of
despair and unworthiness. In prison, he declares:

"But why should I blame Fortune? I am myself the cause of all my misery. All the
dreadful mischiefs which have befallen me are the consequences only of my own
folly and vice."

He has learnt his lesson. He admits:

"I thank Heaven, I have had time to reflect on my past life, where though I cannot
charge myself with gross villainy, yet I can discern follies and vices more than
enough to repent and to be ashamed of: follies which have been attended with
dreadful consequences to myself, and have brought me to the brink of destruction."

Tom's Goodness of Heart. Fielding's philosophy was based on the view that
goodness of heart is the most important virtue in human beings. He did not judge
men by their deeds alone but by their motivations as well. Tom possesses goodness
of heart. His virtues cannot be called the vices of a good man. They are virtues in
themselves, and would be such in any person. He is generous. He does not hurt
anyone consciously. Indeed, he takes great pains to help anyone else in distress. He
does not mind risking, his own life to rescue Sophia's bird, and later, to rescue
Sophia herself. He rushes to the help of the Man of the Hill and Mrs. Waters. He
helps the highwayman when he hears of his distressed conditions. He is generous
enough to forgive Black George and Blifil. Even Squire Allworthy is led to remark
that Tom carried the forgiving spirit too far.
 What Tom lacked was prudence which would help him to discharge his duties
better in the world. Allworthy says:

"Prudence is indeed the duty which we owe to ourselves."

If a man neglected to be prudent, he was laying the foundations of his own ruin.
Others would not hesitate to accelerate his ruin. Tom, however, has been learning
the need for prudence. He has gained maturity. By the end of the novel, he has
become a better human being, though not perfect.

Conclusion. Tom is, indeed, an unheroic hero. As a protagonist of a novel, he is

a departure from the conventional concept of the hero as a man with all the noble
virtues embodied in him. Fielding makes him an ordinary man, with ordinary
weaknesses. But Tom is aware of those weaknesses, and tries to overcome them.
"Tom Jones was a new type of hero, one might say the unheroic hero", says Walter
Allen. One cannot argue with the observation. It is, however, a totally different
thing to say that the virtues of Tom are the vices of a truly noble man. Tom has
vices; he also has virtues which are virtues by any standard, and his vices are not
as bad as they were painted by Fielding's critics.
SMART MOVES JOURNAL IJELLH Vol. 9, Issue 1, January 2021
DOI: https://doi.org/10.24113/ijellh.v9i1.10965

Tom Jones : A Subaltern Critique

Dr. Shreeja Tripathi Sharma

Assistant Professor

Institute for Excellence in Higher Education

Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, India

shreeja.sharma@gmail.com

Abstract

Henry Feilding’s Tom Jones offers a picture of English society during the imperial times

through a thought-provoking scrutiny of the marginalised voices and indirectly subverts the

imperial authority of oppression. Fielding’s defining work which notably laid the foundation

of the English novel has often been implored for nuances of morality and sin.

This research paper explores the novel as a prelude to the postmodern subaltern voice against

the dominion of the social and economically elite through the emancipatory empowerment of

the roguish foundling hero of the picaresque tradition: Tom Jones. The paper seeks to

establish the relevance of Tom Jones for the readers of the so- called Third World, as it

offers a glimpse into the subaltern aspects of identity of the coloniser. In this context, this

paper evaluates the narrative of Fielding’s Tom Jones with reference to two key concerns:

exposition of the oppressive power structure and revelation of marginalised oppressed.

Keywords: Tom Jones, Henry Feilding, Subaltern, Third-World Readers, Gender, Voices of

the Marginalised

Fielding published Tom Jones in 1749 when the English novel was in its infancy and

significantly influenced the tradition of the English novel through his work. He introduced

a new fictional hero through the character of Tom Jones – a rather misjudged character from

www.ijellh.com e-ISSN: 2582-3574 p-ISSN: 2582-4406 219

SMART MOVES JOURNAL IJELLH Vol. 9, Issue 1, January 2021

the marginalised society whose moral scrutiny by the elite upper class, ironically exposed

their hollow ideals. Fielding’s novel may be regarded as a prelude to the post-colonial

narrative with the voice of subaltern oppression flowing like a stream prophetically

interrogating the colonial social structure.

Fielding introduced the protagonist, Tom Jones as a ‘foundling’- an illegitimate child

born out of a wedlock, and brashly launched the subaltern hero on a so to say, ‘pre-subaltern

stage’. He whirled the focus on the marginalised voices of the society through the ‘foundling

hero’ Tom Jones.

The narrative transformed the rebellious image of the stereotype foundling typified by

orthodox connotations of villainy and deceit into a panorama of naïve sensibilities through

the character of Tom Jones. The work interrogated the legitimate structures of authority by

exposing the norms of elite society and assigned a fresh perspective to morality from the

perspective of the marginalised, thus granting voice to the speechless, through a rather

amusing account.

This paper seeks to analyse the novel as a historical precursor of the “subaltern

movement”. The “subaltern” embodies the general attribute of subordination in the South

Asian society expressed in a multitude of ways such as class, caste, age, gender and ” (Guha,

“Preface” 35). The Subaltern studies fundamentally concern the examination of the “binary

relationship” of the subaltern and ruling classes in the social structure and essentially

involves the interplay of dominance and subordination in colonial systems.

The Subaltern encompasses and involves wider connotations and associations such as

exploring the undocumented historical archives of the subaltern groups. The term was

notably used by the Italian Marxist thinker Antonio Gramci, who described the term

‘Subaltern’ to refer to ‘inferior rank’, in the context of the subjugated working class people in

Soviet Union, oppressed under the hegemonic power of the ruling class.

www.ijellh.com e-ISSN: 2582-3574 p-ISSN: 2582-4406 220

SMART MOVES JOURNAL IJELLH Vol. 9, Issue 1, January 2021

Eventually, it was adopted by a team of historians comprising what is now called the

‘Subaltern Studies Group’ to describe the subordination in terms of class, gender, race in the

South Asian Society. The members of the group include notable members such as Ranjith

Guha, Dipesh Chakrabarty and Gyanendra Pandey.etc. The concept was further popularised

by the Gayatri Chakrabarty Spivak’s essay “Can the Subaltern speak? In which expanded the

scope further through the inclusion of the concerns of feministic of the women belonging to

the Third World (1985).

The key focus of the approach concerns examining and voicing the concerns of the

oppressed Subaltern classes buried beneath the structures of dominant social classes. It is in

this context that Tom Jones emerges as a predecessor of the genisis which would eventually

culminate into a the discourse on the Subaltern.

Since the historical narratives necessarily privilege the elite class and overlook the

marginalised, the documentation of the Subaltern in the narrative inevitably becomes a

crucial vantage point for readers of literary history. Tom Jones becomes particularly relevant

in this regard. The novel is significantly relevant for the contemporary readers of the so called

Third World, as it holds up a mirror to the contemporary English society and culture and

offers a glimpse into the subaltern aspects of identity of the coloniser; with scarcely a few

contemporary analogous works offering a realistic snapshot of the society. Moreover,

Feilding made a departure from the conventional themes of the eighteenth century works

which relied on substance from classical mythology, religion, epics, history and likewise.

Feilding drew much of his substance for the plot from the common place world of the trivial

and the insignificant chunks of society.

Therefore, while a significant number of contemporary works were prone to

eulogising the elite and remained silent towards or even belittled the marginalised class; Tom

Jones voiced the concerns of the marginalised sections and provided a more real slice of life.

www.ijellh.com e-ISSN: 2582-3574 p-ISSN: 2582-4406 221

SMART MOVES JOURNAL IJELLH Vol. 9, Issue 1, January 2021

Feilding had built a ‘life and blood-real-hero’, a clear departure from the contemporary

traditional mode analogous with Gramsci’s notion of the subaltern, “Knowledge of the

subaltern classes relates to real men, formed in specific historical relations, with specific

feelings, outlooks, fragmentary conceptions of the world, etc…” (220).

The novel reveals the binary dichotomy between elite and the subaltern sections of the

society and implores the possibility of a transformation positioned in the silent subaltern

domain. Tom transforms during the course of the novel, as he moves from the country, via

the highway towards the urbane setting of the city; maturing amid bourgeois class

exploitation, and exhibiting in Gramsci’s words, the “ historical forms of passive revolution”.

The work revaluates the structures of power and hierarchy and seeks to disempower

the dominant structure. Several, instances in the novel raise questions on the values of the

dominant social groups and juxtaposes it against the ‘ sinful morality’ of Tom Jones. Squire

Allworthy ironically proclaimed as “the wisest of men” does little to exemplify so through his

actions and on the contrary is evidently a poor judge of character vulnerable to being easily

deceived and swayed by falsities. His lack of judgement is apparent from the way he is

manipulated by Blifil against the honest and straightforward Tom.

His misjudgement is also evident through his relationship with Captain Blifil,

towards whose flaws he apparently turns a blind eye. Allworthy's failure to recognise the true

character of Thwackum and Square, the hypocritical tutors engaged to teach Bilfil and Tom

is equally unjust. In fact, the approach to education adopted by them raises questions on the

real aim of education in terms of development of morality and ethics in conduct and

behaviour. He makes vital errors of judgment in nearly in every situation involving decision

making - including the cases of Partridge and Jenny Jones. Jenny Jones deliberately deceives

him, but nevertheless he fails to investigate the matter judiciously and Tom, Jenny Jones and

Patridge suffer heavily on account of his misjudgement.

www.ijellh.com e-ISSN: 2582-3574 p-ISSN: 2582-4406 222

SMART MOVES JOURNAL IJELLH Vol. 9, Issue 1, January 2021

Squire Western and Bilfil, the other members of the dominant group cannon likewise

display unquestionable credentials and direct the decision to marry Sophia on the basis on

materialistic objectives. While Squire Wester wants Sophia to marry Bilfil as he in the heir-

apparent of Squire Allworthy; Bilfil wants to marry her in order to inherit her wealth.

Explicably, Squire Western changes his mind to marry her to Tom upon learning that Tom

and not Bilfil is the legitimate heir to Allworthy’s estate. The novel clearly exposes the

hypocrisy and hollowness inbuilt in the corruptible structures of hierarchy and juxtaposes

them with the so called sinful but profoundly honest morality of Tom Jones, the foundling,

who loves Sophia for her virtues - not her wealth and possessions. Blifil’s intentions of

marrying Sophia become clear in the following lines:

He was indeed perfectly well satisfied with his prospect of success; for as to

that entire and absolute possession of the heart of his mistress which romantic lovers

require, the very idea of it never entered his head. Her fortune and her person were the

sole objects of his wishes, of which he made no doubt soon to obtain the absolute

property; as Mr Western’s mind was so earnestly bent on the match; and as he well

knew the strict obedience which Sophia was always ready to pay to her father’s will.

(Fielding, 109)

The narrative redresses the central question of a subaltern discourse – Can history be

written outside the dominant structure of power ? The subaltern texts examine the degree to

which a narrative documents the voices the concerns of the marginalised classes, the

constituents usually overlooked in documentation of a historic, social or a fictional narrative.

The novel with its title “The History of Tom Jones, A Foundling” acts as a chronicle

of socio-cultural contemporary structures describes the life outside the dominant structure of

the elite class and subverts the authority of the hegemonic discourse. Fielding describes the

life of the subaltern classes – Tom, Black George, Partridge, and ladies in Tom’s life, in rich

www.ijellh.com e-ISSN: 2582-3574 p-ISSN: 2582-4406 223

SMART MOVES JOURNAL IJELLH Vol. 9, Issue 1, January 2021

detail, clouded by the overarching shadow of the dominant social class. The characters seem

to enact Gramsci’s hypothesised “consented coercion” and apparently ungrudgingly comply

by the expected codes of conduct and behaviour:

… the supremacy of a social group manifests in two ways, as “ dominion” and as “

intellectual and moral leadership” … it seems clear… that there can and indeed must

be hegemonic activity even before the rise to power, and that one should not count

only on the material force which power gives in order to exercise effective leadership.

Religion plays an important role in subaltern protests against an order and the setting

of the Jacobite Rising of 1745 serves as a suitable backdrop. Fielding boldly bestows Tom

Jones a roguish, reckless hero with questionable ethics the most exalted

virtues like courage, generosity and benevolence and juxtaposes his morality with vices like

hypocrisy and injustice present the ‘refined and intellectual’ elite class. The proclivity

towards a thematic concerns - simple rustic life and ordinary language of common rural folk,

which would be emphatically emphasised by the Romantic poets in the succeeding age, find a

genesis in Tom Jones.

The novel explores the subdued position of the female characters against the role of

power play in a male-dominated world and the wide variety of the female characters,

including Sophia, the female protagonist largely fail to voice and assert their problematic

identity. Women belong to the subaltern sections of the society and represent the

marginalized, the silenced, and the oppressed.

Sophia's natural prudence makes her recognise Tom’s true character in contrast to the

learned ‘acquired prudence’ of Squire Allworthy and Squire Western. Though she is

apparently a better judge of human character yet the degree of her autonomy and exercise of

her prudence and will remains bound by the overarching dictates of her father’s decision to

marry her. She subordinates her love for Tom to her duty towards her father as apparent in

www.ijellh.com e-ISSN: 2582-3574 p-ISSN: 2582-4406 224

SMART MOVES JOURNAL IJELLH Vol. 9, Issue 1, January 2021

the lines: “ those Cardinal Virtues which 1ike good House-wives stay at home, and mind only

the Business of their own family…” ( 601)

Sophia loves Tom but never transgresses the decorum and complies by the norms of

rightful conduct. In spite of her feelings for Tom she typically fits the persona of a

stereotypical ‘chaste maid’ who follows the path of morality and good virtue consistently, in

contrast to Tom Jone’s evolutionary transformation. Her love for Tom never appears to be

exceedingly overwhelming and she rather remains in a state of ambivalence. However, as the

novel proceeds she begins to assert her identity when she boldly absconds from her father's

estate and travels fearlessly to London. But despite the bold initiative she does not accept

Tom until the final resolution of the conflict in the plot and thus confirms to the image of the

voiceless Subaltern. Though in part her decision may have been affected by Tom’s apparent

involvement with Mrs. Waters.

Tom Jones can be seen a precursor to post-modern ideology of the voices of the sub-

altern. Fielding deliberately reverses this perception through his comic representation. The

Third world readers who often undergo suffering in various forms such as racist, casteist or

retrogressive and orthodox, can particularly relate to the voice of the sub- altern in the

narrative of Tom Jones.

www.ijellh.com e-ISSN: 2582-3574 p-ISSN: 2582-4406 225

SMART MOVES JOURNAL IJELLH Vol. 9, Issue 1, January 2021

Works Cited

Fielding, Henry. The History of Tom Jones, a Foundling. New York : Penguin Classics,

2005.

Guha, Ranajit. A Subaltern Studies Reader, 1986-1995. University of Minnesota Press, 1997.

Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty. “Can the Subaltern Speak?.” Can the Subaltern Speak?

Reflections on the History of an Idea, 1988.

www.ijellh.com e-ISSN: 2582-3574 p-ISSN: 2582-4406 226

 CONCERNS?
tructure

Objectives
Introduction
Introductory Chapters : Their Relevance
5.2.1 The Instructional Aspect
The Many Episodes in Tom Jones
5.3.1 Why is the Man of the Hill Episode Integral to the Novel?
Let Us Sum Up
Glossary
Questions

.O OBJECTIVES
Ithe previous Unit we looked at some of the key characters in Tom Jones and the
.oblems of characterisation. In this Unit let us look at another aspect of Fielding's
chnique a$ a novelist -the question of plot. Some believe that there are several
ctraneous elements in the novel which can be easily deleted without any adverse effect
I the overall plot. Is this true? Or is it that each detail is relevant and integral to the
:heme of the whole novel? By reading this Unit carefully, you will be able to formulate
:awned answers to these questions.

.1 INTRODUCTION
he modern critic lays special emphasis on the unity of a literary work - that element of
ie book which keeps its different parts together. This element is related to the principle
f form, call it the plot, the structure or the arrangement of happenings and events under a
~nsciousartistic plan. In our opinion, such an emphasis would naturally ~ o r against
k
ke meaning q d message of the literary work. While reading a novel, should we enquire
hether its descriptions and representations cohere with one another to move towards an
'tistic unity7 One cannot have much quarrel with this principle in the abstract but
ifficulties occur when it is used by the critic to question the validity of certain loose-
boking episodes or references. In the first place, 'the central concern of a work can
~mfortablycoexist with certain other major or minor concerns. In fact, in a novel, which
self is a "loose" form, many "extfaneous" elements can be introduced by the author for
le sake of commenting upon the general issues of the period in which he or she lived.
ut more importantly, the so-called minor or secondary episodes or incidents may
?gage the attention of one reader more than that of another. This happens because the
ino or elements may have something inherent in them that sets the mind of a specific
:ader or set of readers thinking. I have in mind the third world reader today who needs
lore than artistic unity. So far as Tom Jones is concerned, it is full of references,
~mments,characters and happenings that do not appear to be strictly relevant to the
om-Sophia relationship, presumably the central concern of the novel.
Tom Jones
' 5.2 INTRODUCTORY CHAPTERS :THEIR RELEVANCE
Fielding can certainly be accused of bringing in a great many extraneous elements in Tom
Jones. I refer to those elements which do not fit in with our notion of 'the novel,' a
straight description of events under the overall requirements of a plot-line. Whatever falls
outside these requirements becomes under this view not merely unnecessary, but
downright objectionable and wrong. Think of those introductory essays given at the
beginning of each book in Tom Jones. And there are eighteen "booksyyin the novel. That
means eighteen essays. The titles of some of these essays are : "Of the SERIOUS in
Writing, and for what Purpose it is introduced"; "Of Love"; "Of those who lawfully may,
and of those who may not write such Histories as this"; "Containing Instructions very
necessary to be perused by modern Critics" and "A Farewell to the Reader."

It seems that Fielding has chosen these topics at random and that he ;wants to share his
ideas directly with the reader. It also gives us the impression that Fielding does not
consider it necessary to relate these ideas in a direct sort of a way to the evolving action
of the novel -for him it does not matter whether those ideas have a bearing on the
novel or not. Ian Watt has remarked that Fielding assumes the role "of a guide who ...
feels that he must explain everything which is to be found there; and such authorial
intrusion, of course, tends to diminish the authenticity of his narrative." This is what we
see superficially. But is this actually the case? In the first place, what are those ideas
about? Among the topics picked up here by me, there are things like "the serious" in
writing and the purpose for which it is done, love, the implications of novel as history,
the job required of the critic and the act of final leave-taking by the author. Fielding's
wording of the topics suggests that he is informal and relaxed in tone, to the extent of
being casual. All this can make us demand that the novelistic depiction be edited and
these essays be scrapped. Would it make a difference to the novel? Those among us who
condder these essays redundant would obviously say that it would not only make no
diffsrence to the novel at all, but in fact add to the quality of presentation, making the
whc le thing look pointed and sharp. I do not agree: Yes, these essays do not affect the
urr21ding of the story in any way and are in that sense dispensable. But without them, the
novel would not be the same. It will lose in its enjoyment-giving capakity and take us
away from the narrator-author's friendly presence. Can we afford that? Considering the
pros and cons of Fielding's intrusive nature, Ian Watt admits that "Few readers would
"'-p Lo be without the prefatory chapters, or Fielding's diverting asides, but they
aubtedly derogate from the reality of the narrative." For Watt, "the reality of the
- rative" consists in an altogether different fictional mode, the one that S'amuel
chardson, Fielding's contemporary adopted. Surely, for Fielding the most important
llm of a novelist is to provide guidance as well as enlightenment to the reader rather than
what is termed "experience."

5.2.1 The Instructional Aspect

Secondly, do we not need to know something about the issues that Fielding has touched
upon in these essays? Isn't literature in general and the novel in particular supposed to
provide instruction to the reader? The eighteenth century writer - think of Swift, Pope or
Johnson -understood the importance of instruction much better than their counterparts
in the twentieth century. The question we have to ask is : Where do we look for $he
broadly acceptable views on important ;spects of life? Do we leave that job to the
opinion-maker in religion, in politics, in social-ideological-culturaljournalism? In
Fielding's scheme of things, all these areas frm which the opinion-maker operates in
the modem world,-westernas well as the rest, merge into the wider area of the novel. Let
us not forget that Fielding performs the twin role of entertainer and educator in his time

42
 that for.him it is as important to acquaint the reader with tlie right views as to give Artistic Unity or
Socio-cultural
Concerns
irdly, in the specific context of the plot, Fielding thinks it appropriate to equip the
r intellectually to grasp the truth of the presented description and to judge for herhis
nefit the behaviour, manners and morals of the characters in the novel. Fielding does
ot expect the kader to go into the complex aspects of morality, truth and courage on
own and in fact thinks it his duty to add to the common sense of the reader. The
uctory essays given at the beginning of the books in Tom Jones have this specific
ctive-related significance.

5.3 THE MANY EPISODES IN TOM JONES

1 Critics, particularly modem critics, are divided on the validity of the "not infrequent
longueurs" in Tom Jones. The Man of the Hill episode is one of these. Some others are :
, Mrs. Fitzpatrick's narrative; Tom's encounter with the gypsies on his way to London and
li I complications of the Nightingale affair. Do they merely add to the bulk of the novel? In
I the sense that they reveal a number of features of the characters involved in them, they
surely take us deeper into the social reality of the period. In my view, an episode is a
crystallisation of certain general tendencies of behaviour i t a particular time. In this way,
it can lend breadth to the envisioned life in the novel. We can with its help construct
explanations of the thorny issues that emerge in the course of the main action of the
I novel. They constitute the world in which Tom and Sophia fought their specific battles.
By offering various choices of action and alternative strategies of behaviour, they also
significantly break the finality of the central narrative. What Tom and Sophia did was
because they chose to do so and that they could go another way if they so desired.

I 5.3.1 Why is the Man of the Hill Episode Integral to the Novel?

To illustrate the points made above, let us take a close look at the Man of the Hill episode
which has been specifically at the centre of controversy among most twentieth century
critics. Its analysis can help us identify Fielding's larger social as well as moral concerns.
The analysis may also shed light on Fielding's view of the epic nature of the novel. R. S.
Crane, an American critic of the New Criticism school, for instance, is not happy with
Fielding's various comments, explanations and episodes in the novel because with their
help, he thinks, Fielding merely "states" his position. Particularly, Crane is not sure about
the "positive values this (the Man of the Hill's episode) may have" in the plot structure of
the novel. On his side, Fielding has presented the episode as the old man's "History" and
"Story." Fielding's purpose ostensibly is to integrate "his History" and "Story" into that
of Tom Jones7.Secondly, the Man of the Hill's story -the account of his life from early
years to old age - is fact-based. Isn't that what we mean by history? But "Story" also
signifies a fictional account - something that individuals in their context perceive and
present. The Man of the Hill himself tells his story. May be, he wants to justify his
decision to stay alone, totally cut off from the world in which he was born. Hence the
story - an imaginative construction - is told by him. Let us then look at some of the
important aspects of the "Story" and "History" presented by Fielding in the old man's
words. From the meeting of Tom Jones and Partridge, both travellers, with the Man of
the Hill springs in the novel "a very extraordinary adventure," which is not merely in
t m s of an incident involving robbery and physical attack. It is also Tom's and
Partridge's confrontation with a person who went through the highs and lows of life and
experienced a great deal of pain. That is how the account of life of the Man of the Hill is
"the story of an unhappy man" which Tom and his companion hear with uncommon
interest. It is a tale with a beginning when the Man of the Hill was a child and an end
when he had after a lapse of a whole active life reached the conclusion that "Man alone,
Torn Jones interest. It is a tale with a beginning when the Man of the Hill was a child and an end
when he had after a lapse of a whole active life reached the conclusion that "Man alone,
the king of this globe, the last and greatest work of the Supreme Being, below the sun;
man alone has basely dishonoured his own nature, and by dishonesty, cruelty,
ingratitude, and accursed treachery, has called his Maker's goodness in question, by
puzzling us to account how a benevolent Being should form so imperfect and so vile an
animal" (43 1). It is a long sentence and the Man of the Hill seems to be struggling with
words to say something profound. While in this characterisation of human nature, man
has been referred to as "the king of the globe" and "the last and greatest work of the
Supreme Being," there is the realisation, based on observation and experience, that he is
actually "imperfect" and a "vile animal."

At the time of expressing this view of mankind, the Man of the Hill is an old man and has
lived in seclusion for a long time. He remains firm in this belief in spite of the strong
argument that Tom presents to him. As we see, only once (when the old man talks to
Tom and Partridge), does the old man budge from his decision to keep away from
humans and enter into an open exchange of views with a fellow being. Tom, the avid
listener in this episode, speaks but little. Tom's comment occurs only at the end of the
account. Here, his aim is to comprehend and interpret, in his o v q specific context as a
learner, the old man's version of a series of happenings.

If we calculate, the old man has talked of events, personal ar social, that took place in the
late seventeenth century England. The reader of the novel is supposed to feel one with
Tom in this curiosity, honest concern as well as absorption of truth about social life. This
seems to be the intention of the author. As Fielding sees it, Tom is the discerning,
critical, evolving, error-committing and learning character. The account of the Man of the
Hill is a part of Tom's education.

An important aspect of the personality of the Man of the Hill is that he has travelled a
great deal during his life -from home to Oxford and from there to London and many
small towns and villages, as well as the countries of Europe. He shares with Tom Jones
this trait of moving around the world in order to seek peace of mind. In fact, there are
many more similarities between the character and circumstance of Tom Jones and those
of the Man of the Hill. For instance, the Man of the Hill has an unloving mother and an
affectionate, well-meaning father. He also has a brother taking to evil ways and
becoming a strong adversary to the younger brother, a good and promising lad. The
exposure of the Man of the Hill to the environment at Oxford, London and elsewhere
reminds us compellingly of the ordeals suffered by Tom during his journey. Both are by
temperament good, helpful and generous. If Tom listens intently to the "History" of the
Man of the Hill, it is largely on account of these and other similarities. What I mean is
that in this sense does the story of the old man become "History," or at least a part of
Tom's history. When Tom's attention is disturbed by the queries and silly interventions
of Partridge, he (Tom) shows clear annoyance and irritation, not merely because those
are acts of discourtesy. There seems to be a great amount of turmoil and churning in the
mind of Tom as he listens to the step-by-step progress in the account of the Man of the
Hill.

From the way Tom and the Man 6f the Hill stike a friendly relationship in the beginning
of their meeting, we get the impression that Tom Jones is standing face to face with his
own future. In the particular context, the Man of the Hill feels obliged that Tom saved his
life when it was under threat from the robbers. This is how the two respond to each other
at very moment they begin their conversation which leads to the long account of the
life of the Man of the Hill :
 " Woever you are, or whithersoever you are going," answered the old man, "I Artistic Unity or
have obligations to you which I can never return." Socio-cultural
"I once more," replied Jones, that you have none :for there can be no Concerns
merit in having hazarded that in your service on which I set no value. And
nothing is socontemptible in my eyes as life."
"I am sorry, young gentleman," answered the stranger, "that you have any reason
to be so unhappy at your years."
"Indeed I am, sir," answered Jones, "the most unhappy of mankind."

re, does Tom not feel the way the old Man did in the bitterest phase of his life? As a
the old man suddenly becomes interested in Tom's affairs. He goes on :
I
-Perhaps you have a friend, or a mistress," replied the other. "How could you,"
cries Jones, " mention two words sufficient to drive me to distraction?" "Either
of them are enough to drive any man to distraction," answered the old man. "I
enquire no further, sir. Perhaps my curiosity has led me too far already."
*
"Indeed, sir," cries Jones, "I cannot censure a passion which I feel at this instant
in the highest degree. You will pardon me, when I assure you, that everything
which I have seen or heard since 1 fust entered this house, has conspired to raise
the greatest curiosity in me. Something very extraordinary must have determined
you to this course of life, and I have reason to fear your own history is not
without misfortunes" (402).
- 11n fact, we notice that Tom takes the initiative in this conversation and implores the old
/man to acquaint him with the experiences he has had in life. Why? "Your own history is
) not without misfortunes" sends such strong indications of the existence of pain in Tom's
life that for a moment the reader may well forget the existence of the Man of the Hill and
1 focus entirely on Tom's state of mind.
11
, I The point I am trying to make make is that the social environment has a lot to answer for
! in the case of the Man of the Hill. That is one reason why Fielding refers in such
1 elaborate terms to the atmosphere i0 Oxford and London. Why did the Man of the Hill
1' feel
I
insecure and vulnerable in the early phase of his life? In this context, Fielding
deliberately builds up a contrast between the old man and Tom in spite of the many
I similarities we notice between the two. Tom has himself been a bastard child, a
foundling. There are few, if any, kind gentlemen in Tom's surroundings who would take

I
I
' care to defend and protect the weak. Squire Allworthy is an exception. On the other hand,
there are hordes of cheats, thieves and rogues roaming the streets who might offer an
alternative path of career to an ablabodied young man aspiring to gain riches and the
)
I
attendant comforts. During his time, the Man of the Hill joined the p u p of gamblers and
I Tom could equally well join such people against whom he happens to defend hapless
men and women. Since both have an uncommon p o u n t of morality and fellow-feeling,
basic Christian virtues in their cases, they somehaw manage to steer clear of vile ways.

However, that does not change the social scene around them. It is this, in my opinion,
1 that Fielding unquestionably emphasises in the Man of the Hill episode, something that
we tend to forget in our long and extended discussions about plot structure, Fielding's
1 characterisation, irony, method of narration, and so forth. To my mind, there is an
1 essential linkage between this vision of society and the deployment of vatious techniques
by the author to acquaint us with the world in which he, the author, lived. The
i significance of the Man of the Hill episode lies in that it is more strictly "realistic,"
) narrowly "historical" than the "History of Tom Jones" which can in a restricted sense be
I termed a "success story" involving a large number of chances and coincidences to
1 support it. Fielding, the honest perceiver of social trends, carefully includes the meeting
Tom Jones of Tom Jones with the Man of the Hill so that he could go into the dynamics of Tom's
progress with a critiquing presence in the novel. William Empson has said that through
the old man's account, "Fielding meant to give a survey of all human experience (that is
what he meant by calling the book an epic) and the Old Man provides the extremes of
degradation and divine ecstasy which Tom has no time for; as part of the structure of
ethical ,thought he is essential to the book, the keystone at the middle of the arch .,. the
whole setting of the book in the 1745 Rebellion gets its point when it interlocks with the
theory and practice of the Old Man. So far from being "episodic," the incident is meant to
be such an obvious pulling together of the threads that it warns us to keep an eye on the
subsequent moral development of Tom." The typical western reader of today can
scarcely see the logic behind the existence in Tom Jones of the Man of the Hill beyond
the fact that he is a clumsy, and therefore, unnecessary presence. Should we not think
about the reasons behind the western reader's lack of sensitivity towards the horrifying
social scene in England? We can scarcely overlook the number of incidents through
which Fielding's novels alert the reader to murders, rape, molestation, waylaying, etc. on
the country roads and in the towns. Is this realism of no value to the modem reader? The
'developed' western world seems to shy away from its "History." It wishes to
derecognise its past. Fielding as a presenter of social reality during this tine causes
embarrassment. The modem western critic is understandably more interested in the irony
and the abstract philosophy behind the irony in Fielding's novels. The reader of a third
world country would do well to doubt the various abstract appreciations showered upon
Fielding. I assert that these appreciations have their roots in modem-day western politics
and ideology.

In fact, the difference, if not contrast between the Man of the Hill and Tom Jones helps
us appreciate the emergence of the colossus-like figure of Tom Jones, a figure that lets us
interpret the eighteenth century society as a playfield for the sporting exploits of a hero.
As against the deep and total seclusion of the Man of the Hill stands the struggling and
participatory character of Tom Jones who understands his scenario differently. The
pursuit of a goal, the endeavour that the existing structure allows a hero equipped with
the self-assurance of a competitor, lends immense appeal to Tom's character. Tom is a
fine combination of broad virtues, such as honesty and truthfulness, ahd an amorality
that hits strongly at conventional rigidities as well as hypocrisies of the day. The contrast
between the attitudes of the Man of the Hill and Tom Jones also show4 Fielding's
intellectual-perspectivaltilt towards the successful completion of Tom's journey through
life. It is a choioe for "comedy," a successful resolution of problems through the author's
intervention. Fielding seems to have seriously decided to pull Tom out of that feeling of
nothing being "so contemptible in my eyes as life."
1-1 ?tellectual churning taking place in Tom's mind as he listens to the story of'the Man
'ill, seems to finally slow down as the Man of the Hill comes to the end of his
&. Now, Tom is at the end of the tunnel. He has taken stock of the upheavals in the
life of the Man of the Hill and come to the conclusion, tentatively at least, that the old
man took an extremely idealistic view of his circumstances. At this juncture, Tom
doesn't share the old man's final view (yes, the view has a finality that is oppressive)
about life :

I was now once more atliberty, and immediately withdrawing frQmthe

highway into the fields,'i travelled on, scarce knowing which way I
went, and making it my chief care to avoid all public roads, and all
towns, nay even the most homely houses; for I imagined every hiunan
creature whom I saw, desirous of betraying me.

At last, after rambling several days about the country, during which the
field afforded me the same bed, and the same food, which ~ a t k
I
bestows on our savage brothers of the creation ... [availing myself of] an Artistic Unity or
opportunity of once more visiting my own home; and of enquiring a little Socio-cultural
into my affairs,which I soon settled as agreeably to my brother ... Concerns
I [whose behaviour] was selfish and ungenerous ... and fiom that day to
this my history is little better than a blank (428-429).
I
is a ring of the pristine sincerity and moral rightness in these words of the old man,
oted by "homely houses" and "Nature bestows on our savage brothers of the
n," the tone 'of the speech being that of hurt innocence and purity. However, Tom
pressed by the wisdom. He goes over and comprehends in detail the story which
ees, a version of the narrator in spite of the facts constituting the truth of the
s is Tom's comment based on his analysis :

\ In the former part of what you said," replied Tom Jones, 9 most heartily and
\1 readily concur; but I believe, as well as hope, that the abhorrence which you
express for mankind, in the conclusion, is much too general. Indeed you here fall
I ilito an error, which, in my little experience, I have observed to be a very
I common one, by taking the character of mankind from the worst and basest
, among them; whereas indeed, an excellent writer observes nothing should be
esteemed as characteristical of a species, but what is to be found among the best
and most perfect individuals of the species. This error, I believe, is generally
, committed by those who, from want of proper caution in the choice of their
friends and acquaintance, have suffered injuries from bad and worthless men;
( two or three instances of which are very unjustly charged on all human nature ....
I

( ...If t h e was indeed much more wickedness in the world than there is, it would
( not prove such general assertions against human nature, since much of this
arrives by mere accident, and many a man who commits evil, is not totally bad
1 and corrupt in his heart. In truth, none seem to have any title to assert human
nature, since much of this arrives by mere accident, and many a man who
commits evil, is not totally bad and corrupt in his heart. In truth, none seem to
1 have any title to assert human nature to be necessarily and universally evil, but
(thosewhose own minds afford them one instance of this natural depravity; which
lis not, I am convinced, your case (43 1-432).

e, this speech is addressed to the Man of the Hill. We notice breaks in the
ges and modifications in words, and the general unease with the way the
t is given form. Tom's uncertainty and hesitation, particularly in the beginning
frees himself from the straight, unilinear logic of his companion reflects a mind
search its specific path. However, there is no given path; Tom has to
the basis of his requirements in a world that has moved away from the
arlier, even at the time the Man of the Hill was young. The period in
went through the ups and dovhs of life and the one in which Tom is
y and metaphorically, have a gap of at least sixty years, quite
n the context of English history -the seventies and eighties of the
century and the twenties and thirties of the eighteenth century.

ave seen the importance attached to artistic unity in modern critical

texts are readers's texts in the final analysis. The idea of the author
er is important in a particular kind of a novel. Apart from an
velist is a teacher and a moral guide. We have also discussed the
many "stories" and episodes in Tom Jones. The Man of the Hill
Tom Jones +isode is an integral part of the novel. The episode is a "History" that puts Tom in
perspective. The reader is required to think of the two historical periods in comparison
with each other - the late seventeenth century and the mid-eighteenth century. The
realism of the Man of the Hill episode may be embarrassing for the modern western
reader. How does it strike you as a third world reader?

5.5 GLOSSARY I

Artistic unity: This refers to the concerns of the modem western critic
according to whom the inner components of a work should
well cohere under an aesthetic pattern. The idea has its source
in Aristotle.

Anthorinl intention: Sometimes, events in a work, driven as they are by their

internal logic, move out of the control of the author. In such a
case, the conscious purpose of the author stands subverted. In
the process, the author learns a great deal fiom hidher own
representation.

History and Story: The former is taken generally as a representation on the basis
of facts. The story, however, is wholly imaginary. The
question is: How does the story have a bearing upon history?
The relationship between the two is the crux of fiction
criticism.

5.6 QUESTIONS

1. Can the various episodes in Tom Jones be dispensed with? What is Fielding's
purpose behind their inclusion in the nsvel? Write a reasoned answer.

2. The novel is supposed primarily to give pleasure (comic or aesthetic) to the

reader. Discuss Tom Jones in the light of this statement.
 JONES

I
S ructure

7.0
7.11
Objectives
Introduction
- 7.2 The Problem with Modem Criticism
I
I
7.2.1 Tom Jones as Plot
I 7.2.2 Tom Jones Preaches a Doctrine
I 7.2.3 Individualistic Notion Behind Sexual Ethic
1 7.2.4 Absence of the Concrete Individual
7. Changing Appreciation Over Centuries
7.0 Let US sum u p
715 Glossary
7 16 Questions
I
I1
40 OBJECTIVES
unit, my purpose is to acquaint you with important critical views on Tom Jones.
in other chapters of this block where I have used
or two of a critic to clarifL my own position. My focus in those chapters has
Jones. Here, I consider a few critical attitudes. I wish to share with you the
or comment quite obviously sheds light not only on the text but also
of good and bad, acceptable and unacceptable. In that sense, all
reader," invariably betray in their remarks their own
in this Unit hopefully should inspire you to

1
I

$1 INTRODUCTION
Unit is heavy in t e n s of ideas and you have to read this at least twice tb fully
and it. Through continuous pondering you should learn to distinguish between

ng's Tom Jones and then try not to think about it. I am sure you would not
effort. I am not saying you would like it. In fact, you may hate the novel.
the power of the book. Yes, you can never be indifferent towards Tom Jones.
book, it is full of challenges and may appear 'dangerous.' When I read it the first
for study in my M.A. course, I found it rather simple. Perhaps, at that time,
s interested only in the "story of the novel," in the events and episodes associated
Tom as he gradually moved towards marriage with Sophia. It appeared to be a love
e eighteenth century English surroundings. The story, as I saw it, started
irth and ended with his marriage. It was too familiar a thing and, therefore,
Confusing this story of Tom and Sophia with the novel as a whole, I
Jones could hardly be called a significant literary work. It also set to
g's own professed aim as a writer to shun romances. For. instance, what is
e Tom-Sophia relationship if not a romance? How wrong I was! I didn't realise that
is relationship was merely an excuse for the novelist to explore some very important
glish society of the period. At the same time, the novel contained immense
I say that Tom Jones is 'dangerous' as a book. It considers nothing unworthy of comment
and leaves no vital area of human life untouched. More, it tends to shake a lot of our
established notions. In the course of reading it, we may wonder whether anything in
human behaviour is sacrosanct. I ask : Does modem criticism try to come to terms with
the 'shocking aspect' of the novel?

7.2 THE PROBLEM WITH MODERN CRITICISM 4

I sometimes feel that Fielding's contribution to the development of fiction as a cultural

weapon is underplayed in English criticism. Yes, there are innumerable references to his
powefil irony. One also hears of the complex plot of Tom Jones. There are quite a few
good long analyses of his craft as a novelist. But if you are asked to form a total view of
his writing in general and Tom Jones in particular on the basis of most available
criticism, you would find yourself guessing as to what he conveys to thi reader in terms
of an attitude or outlook. In the so-called traditional criticism, particularly written in the
eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, some importance was accorded to humanism, moral
values, goodness, honour, and so on. But the twentieth century criticism (we can also
broadly call it 'modern' criticism) is wary of dealing with these things and considers only
craft, technique and method worth the reader's attention. The question is : Why irony and
plot-structure? Why not social criticism and an alternative strategy to evolve a moral-
intellectual stance? Modem criticism circumvents these issues and merrily goes on to
explore voices, narrativelnarratives and structure/structures. There is no doubt that these
are important. But are they important in themselves? A considerable chunk of 'modern'
criticism gives evidence of this belief. And it is wrong. My answer to such a question
would be different. I would say that irony and other fictional devices used by Fielding
fulfil an important purpose. This means that we should mainly endeavour to understand
that purpose.

To my mind, literary criticism should aim at formulating that which the writer wishes to
convey to the reader. That should be in focus. Ask the modern critic this question and the
response would be something like this : "Well, focus? O.K. Our focus should, of course,
be on that which is to be conveyed to the reader. And what is conveyed is the sense of
irony. Attitude? Yes, Fielding's attitude is ironical. Nothing is outside or beyond his
irony." This would be a smart answer. But also a superficial one. Because "the sense of
irony7'and "ironical attitude" signify a rejection of everything in life, or at least placing
right and wrong on'an equal footing. It can be said that contemporary analyses of
literature suffer from a barrenness not witnessed before. And this is because the
contemporary critical comment deliberately, as if under a carefully chalked-out plan,
avoas what Fielding wants to communicate to the reader.

As a great realist, Fielding looks at his society with deep critical interest and finds that
society totally submerged in orthodoxy. To Fielding, this orthodoxy is spread over the
entire English life. The writer of Tom Jones notes with concern and anger that all those
with social authority and power in the eighteenth century society are bereft of sensitivity,
fellow-feeling and kindness. They can be seen as callously going about their ways, giving
the impression that nothing outside their immediate interest is of any value.

7.2.1 Tom Jones as Plot

&

Let us consider some critical opinions on Tom Jones in detail. R. S. Crane in his essay
"The Plot of Tom Jones" focuses attention exclusively on Tom's character in its process
of evolution through various encounters and happenings in the novel. In Crane's opinion,
the value of the plot lies in the "capacity of its peculiar synthesis of character, action and
thought." Crane examines the sequence of incidents under the overall pattern of action
11s the plot a mere "substrate" and a "material system of action." According to Some Critical
,the aspect to be emphasised is the artistic quality of a work which consists in Opinions on
a particular emotion in the reader. It is this artistic quality which imparts plot to Tom Jones

s idea of plot in Tom Jones is not complete without reference to the particular
tudes, ups and downs, in Tom's life and the way his fate is interpreted by the
between the "beginning" through the "middle" to the "end" of the novel. In
s opinion, it is a comic, and not "tragic" pleasure that the novel affords. For Crane,
"is no Iago" but one who suffers from gross "ineptitude" in spite of his
ulative skills. Crane says that Blifil "merely is a clever opportunist." All other
rs with whom Tom interacts are also comic. Insofar as Crane is concerned,
" gives merely happiness. Crane does not appreciate the highly negative and

ing nature of Squire Western as well as his sister whom he calls "blundering pair
s" and Dowling's role of an acquiescing, amoral confidante whom Crane defines
s "the man always in a hurry.'' This is a way of saying that Tom is not faced with
angers since Blifil, Western and Dowling can only create minor obstructions.
t the tendencies they represent? Should the plot not address such questions?

ly, the success of the plot of Tom Jones lies according to Crane in its capacity to
mic pleasure to the reader. In Crane's opinion, this process suffers wherever
brings in extraneous elements (he calls them faults) such as long episodes,
s intrusions and unnecessary introductory essays in each book. Obviously,
and long authorial comments, as Crane sees-them,come in the way of the
's enjoyment. The fault seems to lie with the pleasure principle which defines
aries within which the action is to be viewed. Why.say that Fielding is to merely
ic tale? For Crane, not instruction but pleasure is of paramount importance.

iewpoint reduces the appeal of the novel to the generation of comic

Crane argues that Tom's character is the comic rallying point of the novel and
that falls outside the purview of the protagonist dilutes the artistic quality of the
f this, Crane is unable to grasp the realism of the novel, which rests upon
ng between characters -all enjoying their existence not merely vis-a-
other but also the environment within which they act. One can
ue of the plot of Tom Jones a lot better by referring to the society and
therein. In fact, the plot can be seen not as an integration of action,
thought in the novel with the quality of pleasure (as Crane puts it) but as a
eighteenth century society captured by Tom Jones with its apparently
m Jones as plot would appeal better if the beginning, the middle and
d to include all those episodes, essays and narratorial'comments
on the eighteenth century ethos and take the reader out of the closed
e narrator himself attempts it many a time in the novel and there is
er should not do it for the purpose of comprehending the unified
ce of the work. The pleasure-centred neo-Aristotelian concept of
rane from grasping the social critique which the plot of Tom Jones

aches a Doctrine

as unambiguously stated that Fielding set out to preach a doctrine in

reacted quite sharply to Crane's comment on Tom Jones.
view of the modem critic as limited and narrow, Empson has asserted
look doesn't take cognisance of the historical reality taking shape in
seeks in fact to avoid the concrete idea or doctrine projected through
of situations. But the modern critic has a different set of priorities.
Tom Jones Empson says that "modem critics tend to assume both (a) that it isn't artistic to preach
any doctrine and (b) that the only high-minded doctrine to preach is despair and contempt
for the world; I think that the combination produces a critical blind spot." Obviously, as
he has rightly argued, this comes in the way of appreciating a novel's true worth. Empson
remarks that "Badgered by neo-classicism and neo-Christianity and what not," the
modem critic remains ignorant about the "humanist, liberal, materialist" nature of
Fielding's writing and considers the views offered through the works as that "worldly
advice of a "flippant libertine."

Empson specifically picks up Fielding's "habitual double irony" to show that in Tom
Jones there is a conscious plan on the author's part to put across a highly tangible
principle of human response to established codes. To Empson, the evolution of Tom's
behaviour in the novel puts emphasis on honesty and courage. Tom's need to learn
"prudence," and to absorb the ways of the worid is great and there is a connection
between this and the "chastity enjoined by religion." But the doctrine "about the
mutuality of impulse" under which individuals learn and re-learn from interaction can be
enlarged to take care of other areas of social experience. This doctrine of behaviour is
largely embodied in Tom's evolution. Empson puts the doctrine to good use and is able
to explain with its help the significance of the apparently unconnected episodes as also
the introductory essays in the novel.

But Empson remains confined to the working of this doctrine and is seldom able to
appreciate that Fielding treats society as a materialist entity. Empson fails to notice the
clashes and antagonisms in the novel's world which is stretched to extreme limits by
.warring interests. If Fielding had to farniliarise the reader with a doctrine, he would have
done so directly or through the behaviour of a character. May be, we can see an attitude,
a critical, realist attitude evolving in the novel. But that cannot be called a doctrine,
particularly of the kind that can be easily deciphered and "preached." Empson is
prevented by his emphasis on the Christian principle to locate the relevance of the l ? ~ t
book which for him provides more than the moralistic answer. Empson says that "the
decisive question in her (Sophia's) mind is whether his (Tom's) impulses have become
corrupted; she is quite prepared again to refuse to unite by marriage the two largest
estates in Somersetshire." In my opinion, marriage or joining of estates isn't the central
issue in the novel and Mr. Allworthy or Sophia aren't the judging or determining agents
of the action presented. Instead, Fielding's main purpose is to attempt a "history" of
Tom, through which he wishes to capture the dynamics of the period in which Tom lived.
In this "history," Fielding wants to show that the environment is heavily weighted against
any individual enterprise -marriage, love, social freedoms, and so forth. In this sense,
Fielding's introductory essays and the comments scattered all over the text are not
"literary prattle," as Empson calls them, but observations that put a question mark against
all available modes of thought including the doctrine of "mutuality of i~npulse"that
Fielding is supposed to project. If there is a deployment of double irony, as Empson
asserts, its chief use in the novel is to assert realism, to acquaint the reader with the
impossibility of resolving vital issues. "Comic" should be interpreted to mean "unreal,"
something that the writer wishes to happen but knows that it cannot happen. Empson as a
liberal humanist seems ill-equipped to appreciate Fielding's realism.

7.2.3 Individualistic Notion Behind Sexual Ethic

Middleton Murry has discusseg the 'sexual ethic of Tom Jones' and said that there is no
specific principle governing the novel in respect of sexual chastity or purity. He perceives
that it is broad virtues of human behaviour such as honesty, truthfulness and simplicity
which constitute the core of Tom's actions in the nov'el. It is pointed out at the same time
that Tom is castigated on many an occasion by different characters for his sexual
indulgences and indiscretions. However, Murry opines that Tom is not criticised for
 Some Critical
author and that Fielding would have us delve deeper into the circumstances Opinions on
sexual ethic of the novel. The point to consider is : Why should Tom Jones
arms of Molly Seagrim? In fact, they are not "~harms"in the
ofthe word. What happens is that she seduces Tom, and he on his side
d being taken advantage of. The reason for Tom's innocent responding to
a1 advances is that he is new in this game of love. This is compared by
with Tom's relationship with Mrs. Waters. Murry sees Tom as sviking an entirely
Mrs. Waters where we witness more mutuality and spontaneity
. Still, what should we make of that nagging sense of guilt in Tom's
e from the memories of his sweet exchanges with Sophia? In spite of the
itfle possibility of marriage with Sophia, Tom could not altogether
be loyal to her. Noticing that in both the relationships, Tom remains a
rry is constrained to remark that Tom is "rather a backward lover;
that makes him desire."

ematic for Murry is to explain Tom's attitude towards Lady

case, it is not easy to absolve Tom of breaching the code of honour, one
e broqd virtues the novel is concerned with, in that he accepts regular money for
ces of love to Lady Bellaston. In Murry's view, this has turned a large
of critics against Tom for the depths of degradation that he has touched. Murry
look at money this way and thinks that Tom considered it no more than financial
ended to him in time of distress. Murry's discussion takes note of
this episode as he argues that Tom has maintained consistency vis-a-vis his larger ethic of
which the sexual ethic is a part. Murry agrees to "the potential sordidness of the
but defends Tom on the plea that even though he lacked "positive physical desire for
Lady Bellaston," he felt a sense of "genuine gratitude" to a friend. Or at least, Tom is
paying back, as a point ofhonour, for the help Lady Bellaston has rendered him. TO
M u h , this is a ~e€?naCtment of the scene between Lady Booby and Joseph, with the
I difference that Joseph had the benefit of guidance from Parson Adams in ~~~~~h
Andrews, while Tom had no such help.
Murry lays a great deal of emphasis on Tom's goodness which is both strength and
weakness. This odd mixture of the tyo, endears Tom to us and also "leads him into his
entanglements." Defining this trait apart from the novel, Murry says that "Good nature is
a natural and effortless goodness expressing itself as imaginative sympathy with the joys
and sorrows of others." A person of Tom's vigour and honesty may gradually move
towards what can be considered right. Love in-such a case might prove immensely
helpful. In Murry's view, "Consummation of physical passion between a man and a
woman of good nature who love one another, Fielding holds, very definitely, to be the
supreme felicity attainable on earth. And that is the end of Tom's adventurous
pilgrimage."
I have presented Murry's argument in some detail. This has greater significancethan
most discussions we come across elsewhere. Still, it fails to link the 'ethic' with Tom's
specific circumstances. Muny discusses the ethic under the liberalist perspective where
individuals evolve their own rules of conduct. The "sexual ethic," thus remains
individual-centred and doesn't reflect upon the social constraints under which men and
women operate. We are left to ponder whether Fielding propounds such a free libertarian
principle. Murry doesn't t&e sufficient note of the author's attitude which is .
~ncompromisinglycritical ofthe social mores of the time. The 'ethic' of Fielding was a
part of the larger moral principle Fielding wished to propound. This principle made
Fielding critique even the norm by which Tom and Sophia (as husband and wife) would
like to be governed. There is a sense of the approaching threat in the last pages of the
under which Sophia and Tom wodd become less sure of attaining fulfilment.
by the way Ihe smiev
p u l l 4 towards ciq
Rung loversboundjfl
Tom Jones marriage may have become more-anttmore apprghensive about openness, goodness or
inner discipline being able to bring mutuality and joy in matrimony. Fielding's strong
sense of realism warned him against too much optimism and hope.

7.2.4 Absence of the Concrete Individual ,

Ian Wan's R e Rise ofthe Novel contains an important discussion on Jones. Watt
Compares the novel with Richardson's ClarzssaHmlowe and talks about the hue kinds of
realism these novels exemplify. By now, it would have been clear to you that realism
stands for an author's interest in the society of his time and his purpose to find
connections between the different forces active in it. Watt notes that the psychological
aspect of human personality is almost totally missing in ~ielding'snovel and that it has a
different conceptual mould than Clarissa. Watt tells us that Tom Jones uses the method
of broad social comment and satire while the latter probes the consciousness of a
character in relation with her or his behaviour. This can be seen as providing mlidity to
the particular character's existence. Saying that Tom Jones's "basic direction is toward a
return to the norm," Watt criticises the novel for what he calls its "static quality." In his
opinion, the deciding ideological factor in Fielding's scheme of things is "his belief in the
class premise" and that "The ultimate task of Fielding's plot ... is to unite the lovers
without subverting the basis of the social order; and this can only be done by revealing
that Mr. Jones, though illegitimate, is genteel." This according to Watt highlights
Fielding's basic attitude which is anything but "egalitarian." Watt explains the point
further by saying that "in Tom Jones, ... society and the larger order which it represents
must have priority, and the plot's function, therefore, is to perform a physical rather than
a chemical change: it acts as a kind of magnet that pulls every individual particle out of
the random order brought about by temporal accident and human imperfection and puts
them all back into their proper position." Watt's whole argument has its basis in his
preference for the psychological "subjective dimension" that Richardson imparts to his
characters, the quite explicitly stated complaint being that "Fielding does not make any
attempt to individualise his characters." We may note here that Ian Watt uses the same
concepts, such as "static" and "dynamic" or "social" and "individual",as those employed
by Arnold Kettle in The Introduction to the English Novel. However, Kettle does not
show pronounced preference for "the individualised" and remains f i y l y stuck to the
view that a critic's job is to identify specific ideological and artistic tendencies and
comment upon them than to "prescribe" one approach in preference to the other. On the
other hand, Ian Watt is prescriptive.

7.3 CHANGING APPRECIATION OVER CENTURIES

"'hv is it that critical opinion on Fielding' Tom Jones is so strongly divided? We have
ie tzference of Samuel Johnson who said that he scarcely knew "a more cormpt work."
On the other hand, Johnson, says Boswell, "estimated the compositions of Richardson
<toohighly." Boswell has further written that "In comparing those two writers, he
(Johnson) used this expression; 'that there was as great a difference between them as
between a man who knew how a watch was made, and a man who could tell the hour by
looking on the dial-plate."' Later, in the nineteenth century, Coleridge remarked: "Upon
my word, I think the Oedipus Tyrmnw, the Alchemist, and Tom Jones, the three post
perfect plots ever planned. And how chwning, how wholesome, Fielding always is! To
take him up afier Richardson is like emerging fro9 a sick-room heated by stoves into an
open lawn on a breezy day in May." It is interesting to see how Johnson expressed
fondness for an author who explored psychologicql depths of a human being and how
n all
Coleridp chose to admire a writer who dealt with manners, AS we h o w , J ~ l ~ n s ohas
along been a~soci~ted with the social and Coleridge with the psychological dimension in
literature.
 s that the nineteenth century was not so very hostile to Fielding as the eighteenth Some ~riticaf
. In fact, it was quite appreciative. See Thackeray paying such a huge Opinions on,
ent: Tom Jones "isthe most astonishing production of human ingenuity. There is Tom Jones'
ident ever so trifling, but advances the story, grows out of former incidents, and
d with the whole. Such a literary providence, if we may use such a word, is
o be seen in any other work of fiction." Thackeray said this in his lecture in 1840 on
h Humorists". George Eliot in the course of her great novel Middemarch
us on Fielding: "A great historian, as he insisted on calling himself, who
iness to be dead a hundred and twenty years ago, and so to take his place
ng the colossi whose huge legs our living pettiness is observed to walk under, glories
remarks and digressions as the least imitable part of his work, and
those initial chapters to the successive books of his history, where he seems
-chair to the proscenium and chat with us in all the lusty ease of his fine
Fielding lived when the days were longer (for time, like money, is measured
hen summer afternoons were spacious, and the clock ticked slowly in the
' We have to particularly mark "his place among the colossi whose huge
g pettiness is observed to walk under." Also, in spite of the broadside
tained in the "least imitable parts of the work" (here, George Eliot is appreciative)
"when the days were longer," George Eliot is more than just indulgent and
reciative. Isn't it radically different from the way Fielding's works were received by
contemporaries such as Richardson and Johnson?

ivision with regard to Fielding continues well into the twentieth century with Ian
unambiguously asserting that individualisation in characters, which Fielding sorely
alone can ensure proper attack on a given social structure. Watt would have us
e that Fielding's comment was geared towards maintaining stability. Arnold Kettle
o said that Fielding had full faith in his world and was "very sure" of it. Kettle has
r remarked that Fielding is "fundamentally confident -confident that the
s of human society, that is to say his society, can and will be solved by humane
eling and right reason."

7/4 LET US SUM UP

,

i
oes it not look odd that a major chunk of English novel criticism in the twentieth
c ntury does not give serious thought to Fielding? And it is not entirely due to the fact
at Fielding wrote in the eighteenth century, the period in which the novel had not
e erged as a full-fledged literary form. F. R. Leavis, for instance, did not consider it
a propriate to include Fielding in the 'great tradition' of English fiction since, in his
inion, the novelist lacked depth of insight. In Kettle's An Introduction to the English
ovel, Fielding has been discussed together with Richardson and Sterne as if by way of
c ntrast.

t the same time, the nineteen-thirties and forties saw a renewed interest in Fielding, the
itical attention shifting from abstract questions of manners and morality to the inner
ts -plot, characters, irony -of the literary work. The shift has created a new
blem of cutting off the work completely from the society in which it was written.
rn Jones in particular has been viewed as an eclectic work with no strong central
ctive to bind the different strands active within it. One does not know for instance
character or voice to look towards for the right, serious answer. Neither the author-
tor, nor the many characters, particularly the good ones - Mr. Allworthy, Tom,
ia, Mrs. Miller, Partridge - offer any definitive clue to the attitude or opinion that
e most suitable for the age of reason, social ascendancy and progress. '
 -

Tom Jones In my opinion, the problem lies basically in our own position in the twentieth century. I#
we look at literature as a means to afford pleasure and instruction at the superficial
or as something that would make us aware of the issues of literary theory and
we would miss out on most of what Fielding has to offer.

In this way, we see appreciative as well as condemnatory responses to Fielding at

different points of time in the last two hundred and fifty years. In the eighteenth and
nineteenth centuries, these come from writer-critics who were not bound to the class-
room or the seminar-hall. These writer-critics published in periodicalsthat reached the
masses the way film and television do today. At the time, the periodicals made a great
deal of impact on the tastes and preferences of readers. In fact, Johnson made the idea of
the,likely influence on readers the basis of his criticism. In their own way, the critics and
writers of the earlier centuries openly shared their biases with readers. However, they
were not narrowly partisan in the manner in which the modern critic is, tied down as he
is to the modern bourgeois notion of literature as art alone. Most modern criticism seems
to be strongly opposed to Fielding because he fosters among the readers the sense of
ruthless questioning of humbug and double-dealing, and the sense of rejection of the
dubious ways of the various power-centres operating in society. Perhaps, Fielding as well
as a number of nineteenth century paradigms do not particularly suit modern capitalist
interests. The selectiveness as well as circumspect responding of the modern cultural
centres should be assessed in this light. We in the third world have to specifically relate
to this aspect. And Fielding leaves most of us uncertain, if not actually disturbed. At
least, that proves my initial contention that it is impossible to overlook or bypass
Fielding.

7.5 GLOSSARY

'.7, Romance: A category of writing that presented an imaginary world and -

took the reader away from real-life concerns.

* Fictional devices : This refers to the practice of a novelist who consciously

manipulates characters, situations, etc. Such a writer would use
everything in the novel as a device.

Comic pleasure : All writing can be broadly viewed as tragic or comic in terms of
the pleasure it may afford. This means that there can be tragic
pleasure (does it not sound paradoxical?) as well as comic
pleasure. The original division was made by Aristotle.

Totality : It stands for the work of literature as a unified whole with a

nature of its own.

Neo-classicism : The eighteenth century doctrine which sought inspiration from

the great qualities and virtues of ancient classical literature. The
scope of neo-classicism was limited to the narrow ideological
tequirements of the middle class.

Liberal humanism: The twentieth century non-class belief that seeks a separate
territory for the freedom-loving and understanding individual
who shuns any kind of role but that of an uninvolved observer in
society.

Libertarian principle : It implies a kind of anarchic behaviour under which the person
looks upon society as a restrictive agency.