Plot as Irony: The Reader's Role in Tom Jones

Author(s): John Preston

Reviewed work(s):
Source: ELH, Vol. 35, No. 3 (Sep., 1968), pp. 365-380
Published by: The Johns Hopkins University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2872282 .
Accessed: 11/12/2012 20:59

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The Johns Hopkins University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
ELH.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.82.207 on Tue, 11 Dec 2012 20:59:42 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
PLOT AS IRONY: THE READER'S ROLE IN
TOM JONES

BY JOHN PRESTON

Thosewhoadmiretheplotof TomJonesoftenfindthemselves
in someembarrassment. To becomeengrossed in whatProfessor
Kermodecalls 'the Swissprecisionof the plotting"seemsonly
to increasethedifficulty
ofgaugingthenovel'simaginative scope.
In thissensewe mustagreewithArnoldKettle ' that in Tom
Jonesthereis toomuchplot.'2 Fielding'ssmoothstage-managing
of the actionmay wellbe thoughtto trivialisethe book. This,
indeed,is whatAndrewWrightin effect concedeswhenhe main-
tainsthatFielding'sart is seriousbecauseit is play,'a special
" His readingof the plot supportsthe
kind of entertainment.'
viewthatwe should' take Tom Joneson an ornamental level,'
thatFieldingprovides' a kindof ideal delight.'4 But, granted
thatcomedydependson ourfeelingable to reshapelife,and that
thedelightwe takein thisis properly a function ofart's' serious-
ness,'yetit mayseemthatthisreadingofTomJonesgivesaway
toomuch.Afterall,anyachievedworkofarttakeson thestatus
of play. That is whatart is, in relationto life. And it may be
thattheworkswe recognizeas 'playful' (the Savoy operasfor
instance)are just thosein whichplay forfeits its seriousness.
So, whilstappreciatingtheease withwhichFieldingturnsevery-
thingintodelight, we have stillto explainhowhe can, as James
thought, 'somehowreallyenlarge, makeeveryone and everything
important.' We knowthatFielding'spresenceas narratorcon-
tributesto thisimpression.Can we say thattheplotofthenovel
confirms it?
' Tom Jones (SignetClassics,1963), p. 859.
2An Introduction to the EnglishNovel (London,1951), i.77.
'Henry Fielding,Mask and Feast (London,1965), p. 22.
'Ibid., pp. 72, 30.
' The Art of the Novel (New York, 1934), p. 68.

JohnPreston 365

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.82.207 on Tue, 11 Dec 2012 20:59:42 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 It may be thoughtthat to do so we shouldneed to be more
convincedthattheplot was sensitiveto the innerexperience of
thecharacters.We arenotusuallysatisfied withplotwhichdoes
notemanatefromsome' inwardness,' somesubtlety in attending
to thegrowth ofconsciousness. Forster'sdistinctionbetweenplot
and storywillhelp to showwhythisis so. Storyis to be con-
sidered' a verylowform' ofartbecauseit offers a sequencewhich
has no meaningapartfromthatgivenby thesenseoftime.The
significanceofa trainofevents,thesensethatit is 'caused,'arises
whenwe discoverin it the signsofpersonalwill,ofmotivesand
desiresand of the adjustments theycall for. This is the kind
of causalityForsterillustrates:'The kingdied, and thenthe
queen died of grief.'6 Causalitywithout thesesignsmay be as
trivialand meaningless as story.Consider'The kingdied,and
thenthe queendyedall the curtainsblack.' This too is a plot:
it answersthequestion'why?'. But it doesnottakethatques-
tionseriously.Andit looksas iftheplotof TomJonesis unseri-
ous in thisway. That is whythereis something self-defeating
about the attemptsto analyseit: Fieldinghas answeredthe
questionsof the plot facetiously.Yet I do not thinkwe are
justifiedin deducingfromthis,as Ian Wattdoes,'a principle of
considerable significanceforthe novelformin general:namely,
thatthe importance of the plot is in inverseproportion to that
ofcharacter.' " In factFieldingmakesit quiteclearthathe has
been deliberately unseriousabout the plot. It is not typical;it
has beendesignedspecifically to servehis ownspecialand rather
subtlepurpose.
There is no doubtthat he meansto draw attentionto the
oftheplot. Whyelse,towardsthecloseofthenovel,
artificiality
recommend us to turnback ' to thesceneat Uptonin theninth
book' and ' to admirethe manystrangeaccidentswhichunfor-
tunatelypreventedany interview betweenPartridgeand Mrs.
Waters' (XVIII, ii) ? 'Fielding,'says FrankKermode,'cannot
forbearto drawattention to his cleverness.'
8 But is thislikely?
Fieldingexpectedhis readersto knowwhatsortof writerwould
do this.He had alreadypresented severalsuchon thestagein his
'rehearsal' plays. Trapwitis a good example.He is the vain
" Aspectsof the Novel (London,1927), Ch. 5.
' The Rise of the Novel (London,1957), p. 279.
*Op. cit.,p. 857.

366 Plot as Irony: The Reader'sRole in " TomJones"

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.82.207 on Tue, 11 Dec 2012 20:59:42 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
authorof an incoherent and unfunny comedy ('It is written,
Sir,in the exactand truespiritof Moliere,'Pasquin,I, i); and
he too is particularlyproudof theplot.
Now,Mr. Fustian,theplot,whichhas hitherto beenonlycarried
on by hints,and open'ditselflike theinfantspringby smalland
imperceptible degreesto theaudience,willdisplayitself, likea ripe
matron, in itsfullsummer's bloom;and cannot, I think, failwithits
attractivecharms, likea loadstone,
to catchtheadmiration ofevery
onelikea trap,andraisean applauselikethunder, tillit makesthe
wholehouselikea hurricane. (Pasquin,III, i)
Fieldingmeansus to see that in Tom Jonesthe sequencesare
thoseof farceand thatthereal skillconsistsin usingthemin a
certainway, to get at some truthabout humannature. The
plot not only does not developcharacter,it actuallysubdues
characterto thedemandsof comicaction. It willhave to be in
the shape of this actionthat we discernthe shape of human
behaviour.And Fieldingwantsto make sure that we get the
rightimpression ofthatshape.
We woulddo well,then,notto takeFielding'sself-congratula-
tionat facevalue. In reminding us ofBook IX he intendsus to
be moresubtleaboutit thanhe himselfclaimsto be. We find
there,ofcourse,'a plot-nodeofextraordinary complexity i;9 but
maytooeasilyassume,as Kermodedoes,thatthisis exactlywhat
robsthisand subsequent actionsof'the fullsenseofactuallife-
real, unpredictable, not subject to mechanicalpatterning.'10
Actullythe succeeding eventsare unpredictable. We could not
possiblyforeseefromBook IX thatFitzpatrick and Mrs.Waters
wouldgo offtogetheras 'husband and wife,'that Tom would
be attackedby Fitzpatrick(thoughforhis supposedaffairwith
Mrs. Fitzpatrick, nothis actualone withMrs. Waters),or that
thiswouldinvolvehimagainwithMrs.Waters,or in whatways.
Whenwe lookback on thecompleted sequence,it is true,we see
it differently:the unpredictable
suddenlyappearsto have hard-
enedintothe arbitrary. Afterall, we think,it was onlya trick
of the plotting.But, really,the plot facestwo ways. Fromone
side it lookslikea forcedsolution,fromtheotheran openques-
tion. In one way it looksarbitrary and contrived, in anotherit
notonlymakesthereaderguessbut keepshimguessingat what
o Ibid.,p. 857.
10Ibid., p. 859.

JohnPreston 367

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.82.207 on Tue, 11 Dec 2012 20:59:42 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
has happened.The latteraspectoftheplotis sustainedby what
EleanorHutchenscalls' substantial irony':'a curiousand subtle
meansusedby Fieldingto add ironyto a givendetailofplotting
is to leavethereaderto plota sequenceforhimself.' 1 The reader
has not,in fact,beentoldeverything and is sometimes as much
in thedarkas thecharacters themselves.But ironyof thiskind
is onlycontributory to the ironicshiftby meansof whichthe
wholedirection ofthenovelis reversed,andtheplothas to sustain
twocontradictory conclusionssimultaneously.
It is leftto thereaderto makethisironywork.Fieldingsug-
gestsas muchby placingthereaderin a dilemma.He drawshim
into the middleof the action,whichthen looks free-ranging,
unpredictable, open-ended.If the plotis to behavelikelife,the
readermustbe unableto see his way beforehim. But he can
onlyplay thisgameonce. On re-reading thenovelhe knowsin
advancetheanswerto all riddles,theoutcomeof all confusions.
The plotthusposes questionsabout the way it shouldbe read.
Is it impossible to readthebookmorethanonce? Or is it neces-
saryto read the book at least twicein orderto understand it?
On secondreadingdo we rejectthefirst, or are we in someway
expected to keepthembothinmindat once?Thislastis,I think,
the onlypossibility Fieldingleaves open forus, and it is this
dual responsewhichsecurestheironicstructure of theplot.
II

I thinkwe can see whythismustbe so if we examinemore

closelythe two 'faces' of the plot,and considerfirstwhatthe
book lookslike whenwe can take the actionas a diagram,or
' architecturally,' as Dorothyvan Ghentdoes. She writesof it
as a 'Palladianpalaceperhaps;... simply, spaciously,generously,
firmly groundedin Nature,. . . The structure is all out in the
lightof intelligibility.'This,she considers,diminishes its scope:
'Since Fielding'stime,the worldhas founditselfnot quite so
intelligible. . . therewas much-in thewayof doubtand dark-
ness to whichFieldingwas insensitive.' Ian Watt offersa
similarreading:'it reflects the generalliterarystrategyof neo-
classicism. .. (it makes) visiblein thehumanscenethe opera-
tionsofuniversalorder.'Its function, he claims,is to revealthe
in Tom Jones (Alabama, 1965), p. 41.
Ircrony
1 The EnglishNovdl: Forimand Function (New York, 1961), pp. 80-81.

368 Plot as Irony: The Reader'sRole in "CTomJones"

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.82.207 on Tue, 11 Dec 2012 20:59:42 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 fact' thatall humanparticles
important aresubjectto an invisible
forcewhichexistsin the universewhetherthey are thereto
showit or not.' The plot mustact like a magnet' that pulls
everyindividualparticleout oftherandomorderbroughtabout
by temporalaccident and human imperfection.' 13 Read in this
way it will appear as a paradigmof the Deistic worldpicture:
All Natureis butArt,unkownto thee;
All Chance,Direction,
whichthoucanstnotsee.
(An Essay on Man, i, 289-290)
Is this likelyto be Fielding's meaning? It is true that in The
Champion he asserts (against the Deists in fact) his beliefin
'this vast regularframeof the universe,and all the artfuland
cunningmachinestherein,'and denies that they could be 'the
effectsof chance,of an irregulardance of atoms.' But he is still
moreconcernedto denythat the Deity is ' a lazy, unactivebeing,
regardlessof the affairsof this world,that the soul of man, when
his body dieth,lives no more,but returnsto commonmatterwith
that of the brute creation' (Jan. 22, 1739-40). As James A.
Work has shown,'4the concept of universalorder was nothing
forFieldingif it was not the evidenceof God's providenceand a
support for personal faith. In fact the essay on Bolingbroke
bringsout specificallythe moral and intellectualimpropriety of
reducingthe Divine orderto the status of a workof art. Boling-
broke,Fieldingreasons,must be makinggame of eternalverities
in considering'the Supreme Being in the light of a dramatic
poet, and that part of his workswhichwe inhabitas a drama.'
It is the impietythat is offensiveof course,the 'ludicrous treat-
mentoftheBeing so universally. . . acknowledgedto be thecause
of all things.'But involvedin thisis the mistrustof those artists
who 'aggrandise their professionwith such kind of similes.'
Fielding'sownprocedure,ifIan Watt wereright,wouldbe uncom-
fortablyclose to this,and it may be that, once more,we should
not take him literallywhenhe claims to be in this position.
The beginningofBook X is an occasionwhenhe does so:
First,then,we warnthee not too hastilyto condemnany of the
incidentsin thisour history,as impertinentand foreign to our main
design,becausethoudostnot immediately conceivein whatmanner
l Op. cit.,p. 271.
14' Henry Fielding,ChristianCensor,'in The Age of Johnson,ed. F. W. Hues
(New Haven and London,1949), pp. 140-142.

JohnPreston 869

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.82.207 on Tue, 11 Dec 2012 20:59:42 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
suchincidentmay conduceto that design.This workmay,indeed,
be considered as a greatcreationof our own;and fora littlereptile
of a criticto presumeto findfaultwithany of its parts,without
knowing the mannerin whichthe wholeis connected, and beforehe
comesto the finalcatastrophe, is a most presumptuous absurdity.
(X, i)
This is equivocal. It may be taken to indicate that this is the
structuralcentreof the novel, the peripeteia. It occurs at the
heightof the book's confusionand may be necessaryto reassure
the reader that the author is still in control. Yet it would be
naive of Fieldingto thinkthat thiswas the way to do so, especi-
ally as he adopts a tone that suggestsotherwise. He sounds
touchyand self-defensive and tries to browbeatthe reader. To
claim that the workis 'a great creationof our own' is arrogant
in the way that the essay on Bolingbrokeindicated, and the
arroganceis blatant in 'a little reptile of a critic.' Fielding
clearlywants to discreditthe narratorand, in the process,to
makefunagain ofthe pretensionsofthe plot. He makes a similar
pointin a different way in the introduction
to Book XVII. Now
he is assertingthat affairshave got beyondhis control.
. . . to bringourfavouritesoutoftheirpresentanguishand distress,
and to land themat last on the shoreof happiness,seemsa much
hardertask; a task,indeed,so hard,that we do not undertaketo
executeit. In regardto Sophia,it is morethan probable,that we
shallsomewhere or otherprovidea goodhusbandforherin the end,
eitherBlifil,or mylord,or somebodyelse;but as to poorJones,.
we almostdespairofbringing himto anygood. (XVII, i)
He cannot invoke supernaturalassistance: 'to natural means
alone we are confined.Let us see, therefore,
what by thesemeans
may be done forpoor Jones' (XVII, i). But this again is a kind
of boast. At any rate it draws attentionto the hard work and
(paradoxically)the artificenecessaryto reach a 'natural' out-
come. It is anotherway of claimingthat the designis intact. His
pride in his own skill is obtrusivehere as elsewhere.But this
can hardlymean that Fielding had the kind of vanity whichis
the markof the bad writer,unsureof his own powers.
We must conclude,I think,that to pose as a bad writerwill
help Fielding to avoid slippinginto shallow rationalism. If he
poses as the invisibleDivine presencebehind events,it is with
a fullsenseof the kind of errorthiswouldbe. What in one sense
is an ironicparody of a formis, in a more profoundway, an

370 Plot as Irony: The Reader's Role in " Tom Janes"

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.82.207 on Tue, 11 Dec 2012 20:59:42 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
ironicrepudiation of spiritualarrogance.In the same way the
ofAugustanrationality
plotis lessan assertion thana recognition
of the confusion therationalistcan hardlytolerate.It is in fact
a vehicleforwhatis self-contradictory, what is emotionally as
wellas intellectuallyconfusingin humanexperience.
III

This is an aspectoftheplotthatEleanorHutchensadmirably
describes:
Substantialironyis an integral partof the fabricof TornJones.
Justas thestraightforward plotmovesfrom misfortuneto prosperity
alonga tightly linkedcausalchainbutbrings theherofullcircleback
to the place of beginning, so the concomitant ironyof plotturns
thingsback uponthemselves transformed. This largerstructureis
repeated inmultitudinoussmaller ironiesofplot,character,andlogic.
. . . Thereversaloftruthandexpectation accompaniesplotandtheme
as a sortofironicdoppelgdnger.15
Her mainconcernis to identify the specificepisodes('ironiesof
the plot . . -.so numerousas to defycompletecataloguing'16)
whichadd an ironicdimension to thewholenarrative.But what
she calls the 'concomitantironyof plot' can be takento refer
to a reversalofmeaningin theplot as a whole,and it is in this
waythatit producestheeffect we noted,ofseemingto facetwo
ways at once. The 'causal chain' that 'Fielding-as-narrator'
boasts about seemsto strengthen the possibilityof a compre-
hensibleorderin humanexperience.But the plot also moves
througha causal sequenceof a different kind,a sequenceof
coincidence, chancemeetings and meetings missed,goodluckand
bad, unplannedand unforeseen events.Fromthispointof view
it is easierto see thatFieldingis dealingwiththeunpredictable,
not in characteror motive-histheoryof 'conservation of char-
acter' leads in quite a different direction-but,to use his own
term,in the 'history,'the shape of events. The meaningof
history,as Philip Stevickhas shown,"7 interestedFieldingpro-
foundlyand theplot of Tom Jones,set againstactualhistorical
events,helpsto definethatmeaning.
The episodeof Sophia'slittlebird (IV, iii), whichEleanor
5Op. cit.,p. 67.
p. 39.
'EeIbid.,
17
9eling and the Meaning of History,'PMLA, Vol. LXXIX, p. 561.

JohnPrestan 871

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.82.207 on Tue, 11 Dec 2012 20:59:42 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Hutchenscites as an exampleof ironyof substance,18 is even
moreinteresting as a modelofthisironicmeaningin the action
as a whole.The causallinksare firm:thebirdis a presentfrom
Tom,therefore Sophiacherishes it,therefore Blifilletsit escape,
therefore Tom triesto catchit and falls,therefore Sophiaraises
thealarm,therefore Allworthyand therestcomeand eventually
pass judgmenton the two boys. The sequencedoes,it is true,
dependon characterand motive;but,like the plot as a whole,
itfindstheselessinteresting thantheirconsequences intheactions
and opinionsof others.The episodeis trimmed to the require-
mentsof parable:it movesfrompersonalpredicament to moral
judgment.In thisway the episodesuggestshowthe wholeplot
willbe designedto exerciseand refinethe facultyof judgment,
an aspectofthebookI examinedin a previousarticle.19 At this
stage,however, it is moreto thepointto notethattheactionin
thisepisodecan be tracedthrough anotherkindof sequence.It
springsfroma paradoxicalsituation:the affection of Tom and
Sophiais expressed Blifil'smaliciousenvyin the
in thecaptivity,
releasing of thebird. Thereis truthto feelingin thatsituation;
staged,no doubt,butdoesnotseemforced.Yet the
it is carefully
subsequentactionis quite fortuitous.Tom's actionscould not
have beenpredicted, forwe had not evenbeentoldthathe was
near at hand; the branchneed not have broken;therewas no
reasonto expectthatthebirdwouldbe caughtand carriedaway
by 'a nastyhawk.' The eventsno longerseemto explaineach
other.Whatseemedto have an almostmathematical logicnow
defiesrationalisation. Actionscannotbe foreseen, norcan their
consequences be calculated:Blifil'smalice,forinstance, is better
servedby chancethanby design.And intention, will,desire,all
are overruledby Fortune.
This is one essentialmeaningof the plot. It is designedto
toleratethe randomdecisionsof Fortune. If Fieldinghas an
arbitrary waywiththeplotthisis notin orderto squareit with
someconceptofReasonorNature,the' oneclear,unchang'dand
universallight,'but to reflectour actualexperience.'I am not
writinga system,but a history,'he remindshis readers,'and
I amnotobligedto reconcile everymatterto thereceivednotions
18 Op. cit., p. 61.
I*' Tom Jones and the " Pursuit of True Judgment,"
' ELH, Vol. 33, No. 3,
Sept., 1966,p. 815.

372 Plot as Irony: The Reader's Role in " Tom Jones"

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.82.207 on Tue, 11 Dec 2012 20:59:42 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
concerningtruthand nature' (XII, viii). Andin The Champion
he arguesthat the historianespeciallyshouldbe preparedto
allowfortheeffects
ofchance.'I haveoftenthought it a blemish
in the worksof Tacitus,thathe ascribesso littleto the inter-
positionofthisinvincible
being;but,on thecontrary, makesthe
eventof almosteveryschemeto dependon a wise design,and
propermeasuretaken to accomplishit' (Dec. 6, 1739) . He goes
so far as to assertthat wisdomis ' of verylittle consequencein
the affairsof this world: human life appears to me to resemble
the game of hazard, much more than that of chess; in which
latter,amonggood players,one falsestep mustinfalliblylose the
game; whereas,in the former,the worstthat can happen is to
have the odds against you, which are never more than two to
one' (Ib.). No doubt this extremepositionis offeredwith due
irony. Fielding brisklycorrectsit in the opening chapter of
Amelia: men accuse Fortune'with no less absurdityin life,than
a bad playercomplainsof ill luck at the game of chess.' Also, as
Irvin Ehrenpreisobserves,Fielding can see a way to resistFor-
tune: he 'opposes Christianprovidenceto pagan Fortune. Since
it operates by chance, fortunemay indeed advance vice and
obstruct virtue. . . . But steady prudent goodness will attract
theblessingoftheLord, and wisdomis justifiedofherchildren.'20
Yet thisis not to arguethat Fieldingrejectsthe role of Fortune,
or does not feelits force.On thecontrary, he impliesthatFortune
is the termwe must use to describethe human condition,the
elementin whichhuman qualities are formedand humanvirtues
and vices operate. This is in fact the source of his moral con-
fidence.Amelia, as George Sherburnpoints out, is intendedto
cure the heroof 'psychologicalflaccidity' and of thinkingthat in
an oftenirrationalworld 'moral energyis futile.'21 And Tom
Janes celebrates' that solid inwardcomfortof mindwhichis the
sure companion of innocence and virtue' (Dedication), and
whichwillnot be at the mercyof Fortune. A ' sanguine' temper,
says Fielding,'puts us, in a manner,out of the reach of Fortune,
and makes us happy withouther assistance' (XIII, vi) .
There are, then, qualities of mind which rise above Fortune;
but Fortune is the mediumin whichthey operate. And, above
20 Fielding: Tom Jones (London,1964), p. 51.
21' English Literature,ed. J. L.
Fielding's Social Outlook,' Eighteenth-Century
Clifford(New York and Oxford,1959), p. 263.

JohnPreston 373

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.82.207 on Tue, 11 Dec 2012 20:59:42 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
all, Fortuneis the mediumof comedy.This,certainly, is what
morethananything makesit tolerable.But,particularlybecause
it is thesourceforcomiccomplication, we shallwantto see how
it opposestheidea ofa benevolently orderedworld.Sincecomedy
doesin theend fulfil it may afterall persuade
our expectations,
us thatFieldingis tampering witheventsand tryingto make
theplotact ' as a kindof magnet.'But in factFieldingcreates
hiscomedyoutofthewayhischaracters tryto dominateFortune
andfail.Theytryto makethingsturnout as theywantthemto,
but neitherthe narratornor the readercan be persuadedthat
the desiredconclusionhas been reachedby trying.It is itself
the giftof Fortune.The beautyof the comedyis not that it
establishesa coherentuniverse,but that forthe timebeingit
allowsthereaderto believein goodFortune.
The basis of the comicactionis the 'pursuitmotif' which
Dorothyvan Ghenthas identified with such clarity.22It is
implicitin the storyof Sophia'slittlebird,and latercomesto
dominateevents. Sophia followsTom, Squire Westernchases
Sophia,Tom laterpursuesSophia,Fitzpatrickpursueshis wife,
Allworthy and Blifilfollowthe Westernsto town,whereBlifil
willpursueSophia. In the Uptonscenesthe themecomesto a
climaxin an intricatecomicentanglement. And Fieldingturns
to 'epic' simileto underline whatis happening.'Now thelittle
trembling hare,whichthedreadofall hernumerous enemies, and
chiefly ofthatcunning, cruel,carnivorousanimal,man,had con-
finedall the day to herlurkingplace, sportswantonlyo'er the
lawns;. . .' (X, ii) . The simileofthehuntis used againin Book
X, Chaptervi to describeFitzpatrick'spursuitof his wife: 'Now
it happensto thissortof men,as to bad hounds,whoneverhit
offa faultthemselves,. . .. And Fieldingmakessurethat we
noticewhathe is doing: 'Much kinderwas she (Fortune)to
me, whenshe suggestedthat simileof the hounds,just before
sincethepoorwifemay,on theseoccasions,be so justly
inserted;
compared to a huntedhare.' Immediately 'as ifthis
afterwards,
had been a real chase,' Squire Westernarrives'hallooingas
huntersdo whenthehoundsareat fault.'Later,Mrs.Fitzpatrick
uses the imageto describeher own situation:she 'wisely con-
sideredthatthe virtueof a younglady is, in the world,in the
same situationwitha poor hare,whichis certain,wheneverit
"' Op. cit., p. 72.

,374 Plot as Irony: The Reader'3Role in " TomJones"

'

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.82.207 on Tue, 11 Dec 2012 20:59:42 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
ventures abroad,to meetits enemies;forit can hardlymeetany
other' (XI, x). These imagesbringout an elementof crudity
in the motif:' we have got the dog-fox, I warrantthe bitchis
notfaroff' (X, vii). The chasesare anything butrational;they
are headlong,indiscreet, urgedon by primitive instinct.Thus,
whenWestern is easilydivertedfromonepursuitto another, from
thechaseofhis daughter to thechaseof a hare,Fieldingquotes
the storyof thecat whowas changedintoa womanyet'leaped
fromthe bed ofherhusband'to chasea mouse. 'What are we
to understand by this?',he asks. 'The truthis, as thesagacious
Sir Rogerl'Estrangeobserves, in his deepreflections,that" ifwe
shutnatureout at thedoor,shewillcomein at thewindow;and
that puss,thougha madam,willbe a mouserstill" (XII, ii).
Dorothyvan Ghent,whonotesthat' instinctive drivesmust. .
be emphasized as an important constituent "
of humannature,"'
doesnotin factobservethatFieldingexplicitly linksthemin this
waywiththethemeofpursuit.Her ideais thatthebookis based
on ' a conflictbetweennatural,instinctive feeling, and thoseap-
pearanceswithwhichpeople disguise,deny,or inhibitnatural
feeling.'23This is not convincing.It seems betterto follow
Fielding'shintsthatthe action,a seriesof rashpursuits, shows
humanbehaviour governed
to be irrational, chiefly byinstinct not
reflection,and therefore exposedto Fortune.
particularly
These factorsin humanbehaviourare above all whatbring
aboutthe looseningof the causal chainand frustrate the inten-
tions of the characters. In Book XII, Chapterviii Fielding
acknowledges thatit mustseem'hard,'indeed' veryabsurdand
monstrous'that Tom shouldoffendSophia,not by his actual
unfaithfulness but by his supposed'indelicacy' in cheapening
hername. Some,he thinks,willregard' whathappenedto him
at Uptonas a just punishment forhis wickedness withregardto
womenofwhichindeedit was theimmediate consequence';and
others,' sillyand bad persons,' willarguefromit that' thechar-
actersof menare ratherowingto accidentthanto virtue '; but
the authorhimselfadmitsno morethan that it confirms the
book's ' great,usefuland uncommon doctrine,'which,however,
' we mustnot fillup our pages withfrequently repeating.'He
proceedsto showtheabsurdity oftrying to adjustourbehaviour
to a systemof cause and effect.Tom becomestotallyunlike
2S Op. Cit.,p. 68.

JohnPreston 375

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.82.207 on Tue, 11 Dec 2012 20:59:42 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
himself,no longera creatureof appetitebut a romanticlover,as
Partridge tells him: 'Certainly, sir, if ever man deserved a
younglady, you deserveyoungMadam Western;forwhat a vast
quantityof love must a man have, to be able to live upon it
withoutany otherfood, as you do? (XII, xiii). Yet this does
not make Tom immunefromFortune; when he reaches Mrs.
Fitzpatrick'shouse in London he missesSophia by ten minutes.
'In short,this kind of hair-breadthmissingsof happinesslook
like the insultsof fortune, who may be consideredas thusplaying
trickswith us, and wantonlydivertingherselfat our expense'
(XIII, ii). In the end his romanticpersistenceleads him to
the most discreditableepisode of the book: afterhanginground
Mrs. Fitzpatrick'sdoor all day he finallyentersherdrawingroom
to meetLady Bellaston.
Similarly,the denouement,the solving of all the riddles,is
broughtabout by chance,indeedby mistake.Tom can do nothing
to help himself. In the end it is Mrs. Waters who is able to
explainmatters.But she herselfis at firstignorantwho Tom is.
She only discoversthat Jonesis BridgetAllworthy'schild when
she is visitedby the lawyerDowling. He in turnhas been sent
by Blifilto say that she' shouldbe assistedwithany money (she)
wanted to carry on the prosecution' against Jones. It is his
malice,apparentlyso obstructive, whichin spiteofhis intentions,
leads to the endingwe desire. Our expectationsare realisedonly
by beingtwicecontradicted.

IV
It is now possible to see why the readingof the plot should
be able to sustain a large irony. We shall be temptedinto a
choiceofreadings.But, ifwe thinkourselvesobjective,surveying
a completedesignwhichhas been distancedby its past tenseand
assimilatedinto 'history,' we may well findin it a degree of
order that Fielding hardly intended. If, on the other hand,
Fieldingis tryingin manyways to undermineour sense of objec-
tivityand privilege,we must findourselvesdrawninto the con-
fusionand hazard of the action, aware now of 'history' as a
processin whichwe are involved,movingtowardeffects we cannot
predict: we are not allowed to understandmoreof the courseof
eventsthan the charactersdo. Yet, as we have seen,thiskindof
involvementis only possible on the firstreading. Fielding has

376 Plot as Irony: The Reader's Role in " Tom Jones"

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.82.207 on Tue, 11 Dec 2012 20:59:42 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
writtenintothe narrativean assumption that mustbe contra-
dictedby subsequentreadings.Indeed,one cannotread even
oncethrough thebookwithoutfinding thatmanypassageshave
cometo takeon an alteredmeaning.
IrvinEhrenpreis seesthisas confirming that,likeOedipusRex,
the book is essentially a sustaineddramaticirony.Behindthe
manymoments of 'discovery,'of 'sudden understanding' which
he regardsas reallytheactionofthebookthereis,he says,'the
supremerecognition scenedisclosing the trueparentageof Tom
Jones.The openingbooksofthenovelarepermeated withironies
thatdependon his beingBridgetAllworthy's firstbornchild,or
youngBlifil'selderbrother, orMr.Allworthy's properheir.'What
we admire,what Coleridgemust have been praising,is 'the
cheerful ease withwhichFieldingsuspendshishighestrevelation
till the end,the outrageousclues withwhichhe dares assault
ourblindness in themeantime.' 24 This seemsto me an important
truthabout the novel. But it seemsalso to implyothermore
complextruthswhichMr. Ehrenpreis does not consider.Appar-
entlyFieldingcan,evenon a secondreading,be supposedto be
' suspending'the finalrevelation;we can be held to retainour
'blindness' in spiteofwhatwe havediscovered.That is,we have
a senseof dualitynot onlyin the book itselfbut in our own
responseto it. We recognizeour 'blindness' just because we
no longersufferfromit. We know and do not know simul-
taneously:we are bothoutsideand insidethepatternof events.
LikeEliot'sTiresiaswe' haveforesuffered all,'yetarestillcapable
ofbeingsurprised. If thebookhas a coreofdramaticirony,it is
one in which the reader knowshimself to be caught,or of which
he knowshimself to be thesource.He is theobserver ofhis own
ironicmistakes.Our responses to the book are, we may say,
part of the reasonforFielding'slaughter,a laughterin which
we share.We are,in short,neverquiteignorant noryetentirely
omniscient.In thisway the book leads us to one of the most
rewarding experiences ofcomedy:it simultaneously confusesand
it
enlightens, produces both question and answer, doubt and
reassurance.25This is a farcryfromthe imitation of Universal
24 Op. cit.,pp. 23-4.
25 Cf. Ehrenpreis, op. cit., p. 66: 'such surprises combine
puzzlement with relief';
and p. 65: ' The same agent seems repeatedly to save us from perils to which he
alone has exposed us; we are continually being lost and found by the same guide.'

JohnPreston 377

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.82.207 on Tue, 11 Dec 2012 20:59:42 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Reason;yetit offers a wayout oftheconfusion ofhumanexperi-
ence. The book suggeststhe powerof controlin the veryact
ofundermining thatpower;or,fromanotherpointof view,can
play with the possibilitiesof confusionbecause the sense of
controlis neverlost. It can accepttherealityoffortune because
it has achievedthewisdomthatan acceptanceoffortune gives.
Chaptersvii,viii and ix of Book V are a notableexampleof
thisprocedure.Allworthy is ill and is notexpectedto live. This
is thesituation as theothercharacters understand it,andFielding
saysnothing that would allow us to understand more ofit. Our
onlyadvantageover themis in our emotionaldetachment, as
forinstance,whenwe see thembetraytheirdissatisfaction at
Allworthy's legacies.Whenthe attorneyfromSalisburyarrives
we knowno morethantheydo whohe is orwhatnewshe brings.
In fact we knowless than Blifil;like the othercharacterswe
arehis dupes. Fieldinggivesno signthatthereis anything more
in the situation;indeedby depictingat some lengththe dis-
appointedgreedof Allworthy's dependantshe impliesthat the
scene can only carrythislimitedand obviousirony.Yet our
experience oftherestofthenovelpersuadesus thatthereis much
moreto be seen. On a secondreading, we knowalreadythatAll-
worthy's illnesswillnot be fatal;this,in fact,is whatkeepsthe
scenewithin thelimitsofcomicdecorum. ThisiswhatenablesR. S.
Crane to say that as the novelprogresses thingsbecomeboth
moreand more,and less and less serious,thatit offers a ; comic
analogue of fear.'26 Also we know,what Fieldingappeared
to thinkwe shouldnot know,that the attorneyis the lawyer
Dowlingandthathe bringsBridgetAllworthy's owndyingwords,
'Tell mybrother, Mr. Jonesis hisnephew-He is myson-Bless
him!', wordsthatarenotrecorded inthenoveluntilBookXVIII,
Chapterviii. Now the sceneat Allworthy's death-bedis super-.
imposedon the silent,unacknowledged presenceof that other
death-bed.Fieldingchose deliberately not to presentthisas a
dramatic irony.The sceneas he renders it takesall itssignificance
frominformation he has deniedus, fromknowledge we import
intothescene,as it werewithout hisconsent.The wordsthatare
not spokenreverberate thus-throughout thenovel. But, as they
havenot beenspoken,theirsoundis producedin onepartofthe
26 'The Conceptof Plot and the Plot of Ton Jones,'Criticsand Criticihm
(Chicago,
1959), pp. 635-6.

378 Plot as Irony: The Reader'sRole in " TomJones"

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.82.207 on Tue, 11 Dec 2012 20:59:42 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
reader'smindwhilsthe is deafto it withthe other.In fact,as
Ehrenpreisshows,whatis at the centreof his attentionis the
factof theirnotbeingspoken,the audacitywithwhichFielding
so nearlygivesawaytheriddleofthebook. We admirehis skill
in keepingit dark,butcouldnotdo so ifwe did notat thesame
timeknowwhatit was.
In anotherway,however,our dual visionof thingsactually
seemsto undermine our confidence in the narrator.Since we
areleftto supplyinformation necessaryto thefullunderstanding
of a scene,we fancyourselvesbetterinformed thanthenarrator
himself.Oftenenough,indeed,the narratorprofesses his inade-
quacy: ' thefactis true;andperhapsmaybesufficiently accounted
forby suggesting . . .' (V, x). But this,as EleanorHutchens
shows,27 is an ironictrickdesignedto makeus attendin exactly
the way the authordesires.There is, however,a muchmore
pervasivesensethat the narratorcannot (or does not) reveal
manythingsthatthereadernevertheless is awareof. Of course
the readeris awareof themonlybecausehe at last appreciates
the designtheauthorhas had in mindfromthebeginning.But
sincetheauthordoesnotactuallywritesuchthingsintothetext
of thenovel,sincehe leaves the readerto supplythemsilently,
he givesthe impression thatin someimportant waysthe novel
has written itself.
In the sceneswe have been discussing, Fieldingobservesthat
Blifilis offended at Tom's riotousbehaviourso soon afterAll-
worthy'sillnessand Bridget'sdeath. There is apparentlyno
doubtas to Blifil'sfeelings and motives;'. . . Mr. Blifilwas highly
offended at a behaviourwhichwas so inconsistent withthesober
and prudentreserveof his own temper.'Yet, howeverlittle
sympathy we feelforBlifil,we sensethat thereis somejustice
in his attitude: ' He bore it too withthe greaterimpatience,
as it appearedto himveryindecentat thisseason: c When,"as
he said," thehousewas a houseofmourning, on the accountof
his dear mother."Jones'sreadysympathyand remorsereflect
our own response:'he offered to shakeMr. Blifilby the hand,
and beggedhis pardon,saying,his excessivejoy forMr. All-
worthy'srecoveryhad driveneveryotherthoughtout of his
mind.' Yet, afterall, this does not shake our convictionthat
Blifilis hateful:he soon revertsto the behaviourwe expectof
27 op. Cit.,p. 56.

JohnPreston 379

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.82.207 on Tue, 11 Dec 2012 20:59:42 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
him: 'Blifilscornfully rejectedhishand;and,withmuchindigna-
tion,answered, it was littleto be wonderedat, if tragicalspec-
taclesmadeno impression on theblind;but,forhispart,he had
themisfortune to knowwhohis parentswere,and consequently
mustbe affected withtheirloss' (V, ix). Theseare thetermsin
whichthe narratorhas constructed the episode. This mustbe
ourreadingof it as it stands.Yet thatis not theway in which
we do readit. WhenBlifilspeaksofhismother's deathwe know
that he knowsthat she is also Tom's mother.Tom's generous
sympathy,then, far fromhelpingto justifyBlifil,actually
heightens our senseof outrage.And Blifil'sresponse,no longer
just a gratuitous and insulting sneerat Tom's illegitimacy, be-
comesa piercing revelationofhisownutterinhumanity. Not only
can he allowTom to remainignorantthat his motherhas just
died,he can actually,withstaggering impudence, makehiswords
a concealedtaunt. He findsit possibleto use his knowledge for
a cruelsecretgame: ' he had the misfortune to knowwho his
parentswere,and consequently mustbe affected withtheirloss.'
There are, then,areas of meaningwhichthe narratordoes
notevenmention.But hisreticence doesnotprevent us becoming
consciousof them. Thus the book beginsto escape fromthe
narrowdesignsimposedon it, fromthe consciousintentionof
the narrator.Afterall it does seem to acquire something of
the 'full senseof actual life.' Fieldingis not alwaysobtrusive;
in fact,it is at thisdeeplevel,wheretheauthenticity ofthebook
is mostin question,thathe is leastin evidence.We notedthat
inthoseinstances wherehepushedhimself forwardhewaswanting
the readerto look elsewhere forthe real intention.But though
thetextis centredon theunpredictable, on therandombehaviour
of Fortune,the fullscopeof the novelis to be measuredin the
dual meaningof theplot. The authorleavesthe book to itself,
or rather,to thereader.In otherwords,Fieldinghas beenable
by meansof the plot,to createa readerwiseenoughto create
thebookhe reads.
The University,
Bristol,England

380 Plot as Iro-ny:The Reader'sRole in " TomJomes"

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.82.207 on Tue, 11 Dec 2012 20:59:42 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions