Engliterarium

Humour in Joseph Andrews

Fielding’s proclaimed aim was to tear the veil off affectation and expose it to ridicule, which is the true source of laughter. Humour, naturally, occupies an important place in Fielding’s concept of novel. Satire has an equally important role, for it has to strip the mask off the ills of society, holds up a mirror to human folly and corrects human beings of their vanities and hypocrisy.

In his Preface to “Joseph Andrews", Fielding concludes that affectation is the source of the ridiculous, springing from vanity or hypocrisy. Fielding intends to laugh mankind out of its follies and foibles. Fielding, thus, employs ironical and satirical humour in several places. But he does not confine himself to these two varieties. Essentially a comic genius, he often indulges in other forms of humour, among which pure fun is very common.

Joseph Andrews has a large variety of humour. Farce is not excluded. Several farcical situations such as the fight scene at the inn, Joseph falling from his horse and hurting his knee, Joseph sitting by the fireside while the hostess of the inn rubbing his knee, Parson Adams in a pan of hog’s blood, the hounds of the Squire tearing at Parson Adams’ cassock, Mrs. tow-wouse discovering Betty in Tow-wouse’s bed, the bed-room scene in Booby Hall, Didapper mistaking the room and entering Mrs. Slipslop’s room and Adams mistaking Didapper for the distressed lady and getting hold of Mrs. Slipslop as the attacker, punching her mercilessly till Lady Booby arrives on the scene with a lighted-candle. Adam’s taking a wrong turn in Fanny’s bed and goes to sleep; all these scenes are farcical.

We cannot dismiss the farcical scenes as a rough and ‘low’ kind of fun, but they embody a serious purpose. Fielding does not really forget that he was writing to ‘laugh mankind’ out of folly. But his satire is mild and amusing. The irony is, similarly, not devastating but gentle.

The patriot blanches in fear and trembles. He turns tail and runs away – a surprising reaction from a man who declares that all cowards should be hanged. Even Adams himself is not spared of ironical humour. His advice to Joseph on acceptance of misfortune is thrown to the winds when his own son is reported to be drowned. His desire to read to Mr. Wilson a sermon on vanity is riddled with irony. He is vain enough to consider his sermon a masterpiece. There are, of course, sharp touches of irony in Mrs. Slipslop’s portraiture and Lady Booby’s affectation.

Satire and irony mingle in the portraiture of Pamela. She is a priggish hypocrite. Indeed, Fielding does not leave an opportunity to satirize Richardson’s Pamela.

Fielding develops the satirical theme most effectively in the scene where each of the coach passengers is stripped spiritually naked in their confrontation with naked Joseph.The lady’s false delicacy, the old gentleman’s selfishness and the lawyer’s professional cautiousness, are all exposed. But the poor postilion swears and declares that he would rather go in a shirt than leave a naked man to die. The crowning irony is that the poor postilion who showed his human feelings was later transported for stealing a hen-roost.

The society of the day comes in for plenty of ridicule by Fielding. The corrupt and hypocritical clergy, similarly, comes in for attack. But through particular examples, through the individuals like Lady Booby, Mrs. Slipslop, Trilluber, Barnabas, the Squire of Fools and the Squire of False Promises, general human follies and foibles are satirized.

Joseph Andrews abounds in humorous characterization. The most remarkable figure Parson Adams is eccentric, forgetful, gullible, idealistic but entirely human. He is indulged in odd gestures and mannerism. Adams never loses his dignity, however much of humour is involved in his portraiture – that speaks of Fielding's skill as a comic artist.

Mrs. Slipslop is another entirely humorous character. She is almost disgusting in her short stature and bearded face, with small eyes and a long nose. She affects long words wrong under the impression that she seems very learned.

Parson Trulliber is another comic creation. Rearing pigs and being with them continuously has made him appear increasingly like a pig.

In Joseph Andrews there is plenty of burlesque in diction. The mock-heroic technique produces plenty of humour in the novel. The discrepancy between the high style and the ridiculous situation produces laughter.

Fielding was basically a comic artist, master of the various forms of humour – farce, satire, irony, humorous characterization, and the comic style. Joseph Andrews manifests these various forms of humour. Fielding’s comic vision is based on a genial acceptance of human folly, which he endeavours to correct. Fielding’s humane viewpoint makes him broadminded and realistic. Fielding’s humour “shines like a sun on the evil and the good”.

Joseph Andrews: A Picareaque

"Joseph Andrews” can’t be called a regular picaresque novel for Fielding employs elements of this tradition in an exposition of his own theory of the Ridiculous. He was writing a “comic epic-poem in pose”. He adapts the picaresque tradition to his own theory of the novel, which shows the influence of various other literary forms besides the picaresque.

However, the picaresque motif helps Fielding to fulfill his aim of ridiculing the affectations of human beings. The different strata of society can be represented through the picaresque mode. The travelers meet squires, innkeepers, landladies, persons, philosophers, lawyers and surgeons, beggars, pedlars and robbers and rogues. Particular social evils prevalent in the day, and follies and foibles of human nature in general are effectively exposed. Fielding’s satire is pungent as he presents the worldly and crafty priests and the callous, vicious and inhuman country squires. Malice, selfishness, vanities, hypocrisies, lack of charity, all are ridiculed as human follies.

The picaresque tradition belongs to Spain and derived from the word “picaro”, meaning a rogue or a villain. The picaresque originally involved the misadventure of the rogue-hero, mainly on the highway. Soon, however, the rogue was replaced by a conventional hero – gallant and chivalric. The comic element lay in the nature of the hero’s adventures, through which, generally, society was satirized.

The Picaresque novel is the loosest in plot – the hero is literally let loose on the high road for his adventures. The writer got the opportunity to introduce a large variety of characters and events. The hero wanders from place to place encountering thieves an drogues, rescuing damsels in distress, fighting duels, falling in love, being thrown in prison, and meeting a vast section of society. The opportunity of representing a large section of society gave the author the power of exploring the follies of the widest possible range of humanity. As the hero meets a gamut of characters from the country squire to the haughty aristocrat, from hypocrite to ill-tempered soldiers, the writer is able to introduce with the least possible incongruity, the saint and the sinner, the virtuous and the vicious. The writer has a chance to present the life, culture and morality prevalent in his time, and to satirize the evils.

Fielding acknowledged his debt to Cervantes, whose Don Quixote is the best known picaresque novel in Spanish.

Like the Don and Sancho Panza, Parson Adams and Joseph set out on a journey which involves them in a series of adventures, some of them burlesque, at several country inns or rural houses. Like the Don, Parson Adams is a dreamy idealist. But there are differences, too, between Joseph Andrews and the picaresque tradition, vital enough to consider Fielding’s novel as belonging to the genre of its own.

The central journey in Joseph Andrews is not mainly a quest for adventure as it is in the picaresque tradition. It is a sober return journey homewards. Joseph and Lady Booby are taken to London and the reader is given a glimpse of society’s ways in that great city.

It is in Chapter 10 of Book I that the picaresque element enters the novel, with Joseph setting out in a borrowed coat towards home. The picaresque tradition is maintained uptil the end of Book III. Joseph meets with the first misadventure when he is set upon by robbers, beaten, stripped and thrown unconscious into a ditch. A passing stagecoach and its passengers very reluctantly convey Joseph to an inn. The incident gives ample scope to Fielding for satirizing the pretences and affectations of an essentially inhuman society.

The Tow-wouse Inn provides a grim picture of callous human beings – the vain and ignorant surgeon and the drinking parson. Once again kindness and generosity come from an apparently immoral girl, Betty the chambermaid. With the arrival of Parson Adams, the picaresque journey takes on a more humorous tone, with plenty of farce. The encounter with the “Patriot” who would like to see all cowards banged but who turns tail at the first sight of danger, leads to the meeting with Fanny. She is rescued by Adams in proper picaresque-romance style with hero. Several odd characters are met on the way – such as the hunting squire – the squire who makes generous but false promises. Then comes the abduction of Fanny – and the reintroduction of something more serious.

We also have the interpolated stories, which belong to the picaresque tradition. In his use of this device, Fielding shows how far he has come from the picaresque school.

To conclude, Joseph Andrews has a rather rambling and discursive narrative, which makes us to believe that it is a picaresque novel. But, on the whole, it is not a picaresque novel rather the picaresque mode has helped him in the development of his comic theory – that of ridiculing the affectations of human beings.

Realism in Jospeh Andrews

Realism means conceiving and representing the things as they are. The basic essence of human life is embodied in realistic literature. Besides it, we have also realistic picture of contemporary society. We, thus, have realism of particular order i.e. a true picture of society, manners, people and customs. We also have what we may call the “universal realism”.

While it is true that Richardson and Defoe have some claim to have brought realism to English fiction, it is Fielding who can be called the real pioneer in realistic mode of novel writing. Fielding’s realism is called “universal realism” as well as global. As Fielding says in the Preface to “Joseph Andrews”:

I believe I might aver that I have written little more than I have seen.

Fielding’s novels present the fairly comprehensive picture of English society in eighteenth century. Though Fielding does not give us material about the environment of the people, yet their mental and moral characteristics are displayed with “power of realism”. The landlords, landladies, doctors, lawyers, clergyman, postilions and coachmen – all go towards making the picture of society as comprehensive as possible. Dudden remarks that Fielding has provided,

… a peculiarly vivid representation of the life and manners, the interest and pursuits of the people who lived in the country, or rather in the west country, which he knew so well – in the early Hanoverian time.

The eighteenth century society which appears on the pages of “Joseph Andrew” is not very pleasant picture. It is marked by an astounding callousness and selfishness. The insensitive hardness of such a society is brilliantly portrayed by stage-coach passengers who are reluctant to admit the naked wounded Joseph. The surgeon, who is summoned to look at Joseph’s wounds at the inn, refuses to come out of his comfortable bed for a mere foot passenger. Parson Trulliber uses his Christian teachings to speak against beggars and refuses to lend Adam even a few shillings. We have also flashes of kindness amongst this all repressive inhumanity. Parson Adams, four postilions, the reformed Mr. Wilson, Betty the chambermaid and four peddlers are only one to act with generosity.

The society is divided into clear cut classes – the high and the low. The two classes may have dealings with one another in private, as Fielding tells us, but they scrupulously refuse to recognize each other in public. The rich regard themselves as the better and superior in every sense to the poor. Lady Booby does not dream of admitting Adams to her table, for she considers him to be badly dressed. Mrs. Slipslop does not deign to recognize a ‘nobody’ like Fanny at an inn. While Fielding exposes such behaviour to ridicule, we realize the hollow pretension of a society which indulged in so much of affectation.

The poor are not only disregarded but they are also the victim of the cruelty of rich. Lady Booby is least concerned about paying her servant’s wages on time. Even the law which should help the poor in their misfortune is manipulated in the favour of rich. Lady Booby’s instruction to Lawyer Scout shows the conspiracy of the rich against the poor.

The professional classes in general show a marked inefficiency and indifference. They do not take their work seriously. Parson Barnabas, Parson Trulliber, the rural magistrate, the Lawyer Scout – all is the illustration of the corrupt and selfish politicians of the day. Parson Adams is merely one good being against so many bad clergymen.

In his novel, Fielding has concentrated more on the countryside. But the little that he describes of town society is enough to give us its characteristics. The wealthy society of the town shows a high degree of degeneracy. The story of Mr. Wilson and Leonora as well as Joseph short stay in London provide us with the clear idea about the vulgarity, degeneration of morals, the vanity and hypocrisy which infested town society.

Fielding represents human nature as truthfully as he presents the society. His lawyers, as he himself says, have been alive for four thousand years and will continue to eternity. He was a man of wide experience in different areas of life. The portrait of society and human nature in “Joseph Andrews” is the consequence of his close and keen observation. He includes life in all variety and frankly presents the ugly as well as the beautiful.

Fielding does not present society realistically merely for entertainment. He has a moral purpose behind the realism. He wants to present reality so that the reader would observe it and correct themselves. To laugh making out of folly is his professed aim. He satirizes bad priests and bad lawyers so that people may learn to be better.

I have endeavored to laugh at mankind, out to their follies and vices.

Fielding shows a broad tendency of realism in “Joseph Andrews”. Social, psychological, individual as well as moral reality can be seen in the novel.

As a painter of real life, he was equal to Hogarth; as a mere observer of human nature he was little inferior to Shakespeare.

He not merely presents society but also criticized it in order to make the world a better place to live in.

The Jew of Malta: A Typical Marlovian Tragedy

Marlovian tragedy is significant due to its newness, Renaissance influence, Machiavellian morality, powerful and passionate expression, element of tragic, inner conflict, its tragic hero, popular literary type, high seriousness, bombastic language and blank verse.

Medieval drama was linked with church and there were only Mysteries and Morality plays but after the rise of a new wave of the Renaissance in Europe, there was a great change in the taste of audience. After the Reformation Movement, Mysteries and Morality plays lost all their influence on audience, rather they were disliked by the people because of their link with the old church. Interludes, Masques and Pageants were introduced and touch of comedy was felt in English Drama but all these innovations were in chaotic state when Marlowe and other “University Wits” started their career. With the revival of learning in the fifteenth century, the translation of the Senecan tragedy greatly influenced English writers. Christopher Marlowe is rightly acknowledged for his outstanding achievement of bringing English Drama from the worst condition of mere and imitation of the Senecan tragedy into its maturity. Swinburne says:

Before him there was neither genuine blank verse nor a genuine tragedy in our language. After his arrival the way was prepared, the paths were made straight, for Shakespeare.

Medieval tragedy was a matter of kings or princes and the plot of these tragedies was mainly concerned with the rise and fall of the royal personalities but Marlow has a modern conception of tragic heroes. A Marlovian tragic hero belongs to a humble family but he is a great man because he possesses great qualities. Barabas, the central character of “The Jew of Malta”, possesses all the qualities of typical Marlovian tragic hero. Barabas is not a king or a prince but a common Jew who has got importance in the state of Malta because he has acquired a lot of wealth by his trade ships in several countries. Barabas gets such a high status with the help of his “policy” that he dethrones Ferneeze, the ruler of Malta, and himself occupies his seat. He is not a popular person but he is a deadly enemy of the existed order. He is a symbol of common man to challenge the despotic of princes and kings.

A typical Marlovian tragedy has a strong influence of Machiavelli, a socio-political writer of Italy. Machiavelli rejected orthodoxical morality admired ambition as the only operated virtue of a prince and emphasized morality of new and more attractive kind which operated for the good of the individual. In “The Jew of Malta” we find Barabas as the disciple of Machiavelli who is ambitious for power through wealth and exploits all resources to accumulate wealth. He uses Lodowick, Mathias, Ithamore, Abigail, Jocomo, Barnardine, Ferneeze and Calimath to get his required targets and never cares for any one by holding the audience spell-bound.

One of the most important features of Marlovian tragedy is that it has the element of inner conflict and a lot of responsibility lies on the character of tragic hero in the occurrence of the tragedy while in ancient tragedy it mainly owes to the unseen hand of blind fate. In “The Jew of Malta” this inner conflict is not so articulate. Ferneeze, in “Jew of Malta” deprives Barabas of all his wealth while Barabas cunningly manages to take back and even becomes himself the governor of Malta there. He commits a fatal mistake and takes Ferneeze in confidence and discloses his further plan and quite naturally meets his tragic end.

Marlovian tragedy discards the old concepts of tragedy as a medium of teaching conventional morality. His tragedy is born out of the fall of protagonist’s Machiavellian morality caused by some tragic flaw in his character which is responsible for his ruin. Barabas’ revengeful motives are justifiable but the tragic end which Barabas faces in not foreign but his very own fatal mistake causes his ruins.

Marlovian tragedy is also notable for high seriousness and beautiful poetry in mighty blank verse.

Shakespeare would not have been Shakespeare had Marlowe never written or live. He might not have been altogether the Shakespeare we know.

The Jew of Malta: The World of Malta

After a careful study of “Jew of Malta” it can be said without any exaggeration that the society of Malta is full of social, political and religious evils like greed, corruption, hypocrisy, prejudice, treason, blackmailing, exploitation, lawlessness, social injustice, religious fanaticism, pride and selfishness. The play is a satirical exposition of the Machiavellian politicians, hypocrite and lusty priests, ruthless Jews and the so-called Christians who have forgotten the fundamental principles of their religion, such as tolerance, patience, pity and selflessness. The picture of Malta is very loathsome and detestable and it looks like a hell.

Marlowe strikes the key-note of the play when he introduces Machiavelli in the opening scene of the play. Right from the beginning we start feeling that “All is not well in the state of Malta” and all our fears prove true when we withers that “evil desires, evil thoughts and evil doings fill its five acts of the full”. The central character, Barabas, is found in his counting house, counting his gold coins and pleasing his eyes and soul with the sight of his heap of wealth. With the passage of time we come to know that he is so much obsessed with passion for wealth that he can cross any limit for it. He is ruthless, selfish, materialist who leaves no stone unturned to accumulate wealth by hook or by crook and hold other people in the grip of his own benefit. He may have some personal grudge against certain Christians but his hate for all the Christians and his grudge against the whole nation cannot be justified at all. He has always an excuse ready for his misdoings as in the case of Lodowick and Mathias. He thinks:

It’s no sin to deceive a Christian

He gives the details of his ruthlessness in the heroic terms. He tells Ithamore:

There I enrich’d the priests with burials,
And always kept he sexton’s arms in ure
With digging graves and ringing dead men’s knells.

But is happy:

But mark how I am blest for plaguing them.
I have as much coin as will buy the town.

Barabas’ brutality is at the peak, when we find him so brutally planning for the murder of his own daughter.

He ridicules religion and thinks it no more that it
Hides many mischiefs from suspicion.

Barabas has a materialistic and utilitarian outlook which places the advantages of the nation.

From this detailed description of Barabas’ devilish activities we start thinking whether Barabas is the single fish who spoils the whole pond but such a criticism is not just because with the only exception of Abigail, almost all major and minor characters of the play are the chips of the same block. If Barabas is possessed with passion for wealth, same is the case with Ferneze, the knight, Calimath and Del-Bosco who have such respective policies to acquire more and more wealth.

When Ferneze asks the Turks what thing had driven them to Malta, the reply was significant:

The wind that bloweth all the world besides,
Desire of gold.

Even the religious characters like Jacomo and Barnardine are equally avarice who altercate with each other only for Barabas’ treasure. The character of low life, Ithamore, Bellamira and Pilia Borza join hands together to get as much as they can from Barabas’ wealth.

When we think about the law and order situation in Malta, we find that both the government administration and ecclesiastical figures defy and violate own rules and principles. Ferneze plays his crafty statesmanship on highly political ground. He has well convinced policy for the sake of his personal benefit and aggrandizement. He takes the tribute money from Jews on the basis of the jungle law that might is right but never pays this tribute to the Turks. In order to sell a cargo of the Turkish slaves, the Spanish vice admiral Del Bosco inculcates in Ferneze’s mind the idea of breaking the treaty between Malta and Turks. The condition of church authorities is not different because they are also found worshipping the manner of gold. Barnardine is only sorrow at Abigail’s death.

Ay, and a virgin too; that grieves me most.

The most important features of the Malta society are religious fanatics and ethane prejudice. Katherine advises her son to avoid Barabas because he is a Jew.

Converse not with him; he is cast off from heaven.

In short the word of Malta is devoid of such virtues as love, warmth, charity, pity and patience. Each character whether high or low is certainly low and mean in mentality.

As Harry Levis remarks:

Morally, all of them operate on the same level and that is precisely what Marlowe is pointing out.

The Rivals: Anti-Sentimental Comedy

Undoubtedly Sheridan’s purpose in writing “The Rivals” was to entertain the audience by making them laugh and not by making them shed tears. “The Rivals” was written as a comedy pure and simple. Though there are certainly a few sentimental scenes in this play yet they are regarded as a parody of sentimentality. The scenes between Faulkland and Julia are satire on the sentimental comedy which was in fashion in those days and against which Sheridan revolted.

A brief examination of these sentimental scenes would clearly reveal that Sheridan’s intention was to poke fun at the sentimental comedy of the time. We find both Faulkland and Julia absurd. The true character of Faulkland is indicated to us by Absolute’s description of him as the “most teasing, captious, incorrigible lover”. Faulkland’s own description of his state of mind about his beloved Julia also makes him appear absurd. He says that every hour is an occasion for him to feel alarmed on Julia’s account. If it rains, he feels afraid lest some shower should have chilled her. If the wind is sharp, he feels afraid lest a rude blast should adversely affect her health. The heat of the noon and the dews of the evening may endanger her health. All this is funny and certainly no to be taken seriously. Sheridan is here ridiculing the excessive solicitude and concern which an over-sentimental lover like Faulkland experiences when separated from his beloved. Sheridan seems to be pleading for mental equilibrium even in the case of an ardent lover.

Sheridan continues to portray Faulkland in the same satirical manner. When Acres appears and is questioned by Absolute regarding Julia’s activities in the countryside, Acres replied that Julia has been enjoying herself thoroughly and been having a gay time. Now, a normal lover would feel extremely happy to learn this. We expect the same reaction from Faulkland because he had assured Absolute that he would feel happy “beyond measure” if he were certain that Julia was hale and hearty. But his actual reaction is quite different and greatly amuses us by its absurdity.

In both his interviews with Julia, Faulkland betrays the same absurdity. In the first interview, he complains to her of the mirth and gaiety that she as been enjoying during his absence. He wants to be loved for his own sake and for no particular reason and he also expects her love to be “fixed and ardent”. In short, his whole manner of talking to her and his soliloquy at the end of this scene reveals him in a still more comic light.

The second interview again shows him a ridiculous light. He subjects Julia to a test in order to convince himself of the sincerity of her love. The author’s intention is to show the absurd length to which an over-sentimental lover can go, and the author expects us to laugh at this kind of lover.

Even Julia suffers from an excessive sentimentality and she too is made to appear absurd and ridiculous for that reason. The manner in which she describes her lover to Lydia shows the kind of mentality that she has. In the two interviews with Faulkland, Julia is again over-flowing with emotion. We smile at the way she behaves; we are amused by her excess of emotion; we mock at the abject surrender to her lover and her repeated attempts to make up with him.

Lydia too is an over-sentimental girl though in a different way; and she too becomes the subject of ridicule in the play. Her romantic ideas and her romantic planning appear absurd to us. She wants not the usual routine marriage but a runaway marriage. Now all this makes us laugh at her superficiality and silliness. These absurd notions have been derived by her from the sentimental and romantic stories to which she is addicted. The collapse of her romantic hopes disappoints her greatly but amuses us a good deal.

The manner in which the other characters have been portrayed is also evidence of the anti-sentimental character of the play. Captain Absolute is a practical man and though he assumes the name and status of Ensign Beverley, he would not like to forfeit the rich dowry which Lydia will bring him. Mrs. Malaprop is a conventional, practical woman whose attitude to marriage is business-like. Sir Anthony to is a practical, worldly man. Bob Acres is a country boor with no romantic or sentimental pretensions but towards the end of the play he shows that he is more practical than anybody else by saying:

If I can't get a wife without fighting for her, by any valour, I’ll live a bachelor.

Then there is Sir Lucius who is absurd but not because of nay sentimentality. One reason why he is absurd is because of his insistence on fighting duels. But he does not want to fight duels for the sake f any sentiment.

When Sheridan himself fought a couple of duels for the sake of Miss Elizabeth Linley, there was a strong emotion behind them, but here we have a mockery of dueling and we are made to laugh at the manner in which these duels are arranged.

Engliterarium

Labels

Layout

Technology

What's New?