Engliterarium: Henry Fielding

Morality in Joseph Andrews

Henry Fielding undoubtedly holds moral views far-ahead of his times. Morality is an approval of adherence to principles that govern ethical and virtuous conduct.

Fielding was accused of being immoral in his novels. Dr. Johnson called his novels “vicious and corrupting”. Richardson echoed the “charge of immorality” against him. Modern critics, however, has justified Fielding and gave him a credit of “an estimable ethical code”. Strachey declared him a “deep, accurate, scientific moralist”. Indeed neither “Joseph Andrews” nor “Tom Jones” strikes the modern sensibility as ‘low’ or ‘immoral’ either in purpose or in narration. Behind the truthful portrait of life, lies his broad moral vision. His writings are informed by an aim of correcting mankind with laughter.

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

His satire is prompted by the positive and healthy desire to reform. He not merely presents society, but also criticizes it.

Fielding reacted sharply against the code of ethics as incited by Richardson in “Pamela”. He feels that Pamela’s virtue is an affectation and a commodity, exchangeable for material prosperity. Virtue cannot and should not be to chastity alone. Mere external respectability is not morality. For Fielding:

Chastity without goodness of heart is without value.

A truly virtuous man is disregardful of material benefits. He is devoid of an affectation which is necessary to avoid for becoming a virtuous man He finds:

A delight in the happiness of mankind and a concern at their misery, with a desire, as much as possible, to procure the former and avert the latter …

Fielding’s moral vision is much wider that Richardson’s. Morality is no longer equated with chastity or outward decorum. It is broad enough to include every aspect of human behaviour. Ones intentions, instincts, motives are equally important in judging a man.

Fielding aims to show human beings in various shades of vanity and hypocrisy and it is done ruthlessly and wittily in “Joseph Andrews”. Hypocrisy is worse than vanity. Morality is concerned with inner truth according to Fielding. A person of affected behaviour is immoral than an unchaste woman. Fielding exposes the follies, hypocrisy, corruption, affectation and the vices of his so-called society.

The stage-coach passengers, the coachman, the lawyer, the lady, all are models of hypocrisy. Each refuses to place Joseph in the coach on various excuses exposing their inner lack of worth. “O Jesus”, cry’d the lady, “A naked man! Dear coachman, drive on”. A man motivated by selfishness rather than social duty “makes all haste possible”. Only the poor postilion favours Joseph and gives him his warm coat. The journey undertaken by Joseph and Parson Adams reveals vanity or hypocrisy at every stage.

It is significant that Parson Adams jumps with joy at the reunion of Fanny and Joseph. It reflects an ability to sympathize with other’s feelings. He can feel the joys and sorrows of others as keenly as he can feel his own. Simple, kind, generous and courageous, Adams is the epitome of true feeling and goodness of heart which is a vital aspect of Fielding’s concept of morality. Adams impulses always prompt him to help anyone in distress. He saves Fanny’s life two times.

He is an innocent … so completely sincere in his beliefs and actions that he can’t imagine insincerity in other; he takes everyone he meets at face-value.

Kindness achieved supreme importance in Fielding’s moral code. A good and a moral man takes joy in helping others. Fielding says:

I don’t know a better definition of virtue, than it is a delight in doing good.

Fielding is as liberal in ridiculing affectation as he is hard on the lack of charity. Adams’ definition:

A generously disposition to receive the poor.

The simple test employed to man by Fielding to see check the capability of charity is to ask him for loan. When Parson Adams asks for some shillings to Parson Trulliber, he declares in frenzy:

I know what charity is better than to give it to vagabonds.

This shows 18th century’s clergy’s degeneracy reluctant to give some shillings. The rich Parson Tulliber, Mrs. Tow-wouse, Lady Booby and Peter Pounce lacks natural kindness whereas the poor postilion, Betty and Pedler are true Christians, for they are ready to help other man in distress asking nothing in return. But Mrs. Tow-wouse is of opinion,

A man should die on their hands without the money to pay his bills.

Fielding is against the prudish morality which considers sex as an unhealthy and dangerous for human life. He favours a healthy attitude towards sex. In his view, the restraint of natural impulses leads to unhealthy inhibition which is more immoral. Modern opinion is very close to him. But he does not approve of Lady Booby’s desire for Joseph nor does he favour Mr. Slipslop’s extreme whims. But Betty’s desires spring from a natural heart and feeling. It is worth noticing that Betty is free of hypocrisy. She acts as ordered by her nature.

She is good-natured generosity and composition.

Fielding’s concept of religion is linked with his views on morality and is practical. He does not confine religion to going to church on Sundays only. He criticizes two sorts of ethics. One who thinks that virtue can exist without religion. In Mr. Wilson’s story, they have no belief in Devine command. They are selfish and unable to resist immoral temptations. The other sort accepts religion but insists that faith is more important than good works. True religion encourages both faith and good deeds. Parson Adams is the best representative of his ideas.

Fielding’s views on morality are practical, liberal, full of common sense and free from hypocrisy that the conventional morality preached by many of his contemporaries.. He does not believe in prudish or rigid codes. His concept of human nature is realistic, tolerant, broad and fairly flexible. Modern opinion has vindicated the moral vision of Fielding as healthy, wide and practical.

Joseph Andrews: Comic Epic Poem in Prose

It is true that we can term “Joseph Andrews” as a ‘comic epic poem in prose’ because it has almost all the prerequisites that are important for labeling it as a ‘comic epic poem in prose’.

Fielding himself termed it as a ‘comic epic poem in prose’ in the “Preface to Joseph Andrews”. Fielding claimed that he was founding a new genre of writing but this was not entirely accurate. There was a long tradition of such writing before him, though it was not completely developed or established. According to Aristotle, Homer had produced a ‘comic epic in verse’ but again according to Aristotle verse is not the only criterion for poetry. Fielding has only combined the ideal of ‘comic epic’ and the ‘prose epic’ to produce what he termed as ‘comic epic poem in prose’.

An epic is a story of “a conspicuous man who falls from prosperity to adversity because of his some error of judgment i.e. Hamartia. His death is, however, not essential. But his fall arises a sense of pity and fear in us”. It also has heroic style and bombastic language. And a comic epic is just reverse to it in most of its prerequisites except a few.

A heroic epic has a conspicuous hero, grand theme, a continuous action, a journey to underworld, wars, digressions, discovery, high seriousness, a high moral lesson and bombastic diction in it and in “Joseph Andrews” there is an ordinary hero, a journey from one place to another place, mock-wars, digressions, discovery, humour, a high moral and a bombastic diction in it. So, it can be termed as a ‘comic epic poem in prose’. We can also call “Joseph Andrews” as “The Odyssey on the road” because both the works, Homer’s “Odyssey” and Fielding’s “Joseph Andrew” in the first place involve a journey. Like Odysseus, Joseph Andrews after the displeasure of a lady, who is superior from him in position and power, sets out on his way home and meets with many misfortunes on the way by the lady who has fallen in love with him. So it would be fairly justified to call “Joseph Andrews” an “Odyssey on the road”. Hence it is a ‘comic epic poem in prose’ as well.

Unlike a heroic epic, the hero of “Joseph Andrews” is an ordinary boy. He is a foot-man of Lady Booby who has fallen in love with him. But Joseph is very innocent and virtuous. Therefore, he leaves the service of the Lady and goes to meet his beloved Fanny. On the way he has to face many hardships.

Though the action of the novel is not as great as the action of an epic yet it is enough to term the novel a comic epic. Joseph sets out from London to Somersetshire to see Fanny. On the way, Joseph crosses many roads, highways, country sides, stays at many inns and meets many people; all this constitute a big action.

Through the journey of Joseph, Fielding satirizes the society of the day and ridicules them. The corrupt and hypocritical clergy, Parson Trilluber and Parson Barnabas, individual like Lady Booby and Mrs. Slipslop, the Squire of Fools and the Squire of False Promises have been satirized.

The element of wars is very important in an epic and it is no exception in “Joseph Andrews”. We see a war took place in an inn where Joseph was insulted by the host. Parson Adams was annoyed and challenged the host. There started the first war between both the parties. Soon Mrs. Slipslop and landlady also joined in the battle. There are many other epical elements in the novel to call it a comic epic.

Another epic convention is the use of digression. There are two major digressions in “Joseph Andrews”. There are, seemingly, irrelevant stories of Leonara and Mr. Wilson. Epic writers considered them as embellishments. Fielding, however, makes the interpolations thematically relevant. For, these are not irrelevant in reality.

The formula of discovery, as described by Aristotle, an essential element of an epic, has also been used by Fielding. In the end of the novel, we see that Joseph is recognized to be Mr. Wilson’s child and Fanny as the sister of virtuous Pamela.

High seriousness is an important element in epic. But in “Joseph Andrews” there is a great deal of comedy and humour, because it is a comic epic novel. But behind this comedy, there lies a serious purpose of reformation. We have a gamut of vain and hypocritical characters in Parson Trilluber, Parson Barnabas, passengers in the stage-coach, Mr. Tow-wouse, Mrs. Slipslop, Peter Pounce and the various Squires. The surgeon and the lawyer and the magistrate are also some other example of hypocrisy and vanity. Each of these characters provides a great deal of humour and amusement under a serious purpose.

Every epic has a moral lesson in it and this is no exception with a comic epic. Fielding’s views on morality are practical, full of common sense and tolerance, liberal, flexible and more realistic. These are devoid of prudish and rigid codes. Fielding wanted to tear the veil of vanity and hypocrisy.

The use of grand, bombastic and elevated language is an important element in an epic. It has heroic diction. But in “Joseph Andres” we see that Fielding has used prose for poetry because it brings us close to the real and actual life and it is much more suitable for Fielding’s purpose of dealing with human nature. However, his use of prose is very good, up to the mark and apt for his novel.

So, we can conclude that the theory of the ‘comic epic poem in prose’ as described by Fielding in the preface of “Joseph Andrews” manifests itself in the novel. Fielding has assimilate the rules and adapted them to his way of writing so well that we are not consciously aware of the formal principles which give unity to his materials. According to Thornbury, “Joseph Andrews” by Fielding is:

An art which conceals art, but is the art of a conscious artist.

It is true that in “Joseph Andrews”, the scale is not as large as one can except in an epic, though it has all other elements of a ‘comic epic poem in prose’, as claimed by Fielding.

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.

Engliterarium

Labels

Layout

Technology

What's New?

Morality in Joseph Andrews

Joseph Andrews: Comic Epic Poem in Prose

Humour in Joseph Andrews

Joseph Andrews: A Picareaque

Realism in Jospeh Andrews

MKRdezign

Contact Form