UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Henry Fielding's use of satire Meagher, Keith John 1966

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1966_A8 M4.pdf [ 4.43MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0104646.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0104646-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0104646-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0104646-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0104646-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0104646-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0104646-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0104646-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0104646.ris

Full Text

HENRY FIELDING'S USE OF SATIRE by KEITH JOHN MEAGHER B . A . , The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1964 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in the Department of Eng l i sh We accept t h i s t h e s i s as conforming to the requ i red standard r THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA September, 1966 In presenting t h i s thesis i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of the requirements f o r an advanced degree at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia,, I agree that the Library s h a l l make i t f r e e l y aval]able f o r reference and • study, 1 further agree that permission f o r extensive copying of t h i s thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by his representatives. I t i s understood that copying or publication of t h i s thesis for f i n a n c i a l gain s h a l l not be allowed without my written permission. Department of The Uni v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia Vancouver 8 , Canada i i A b s t r a c t Henry F i e l d i n g ' s Use of S a t i r e Poe t , p l a y w r i g h t , j o u r n a l i s t , and n o v e l i s t , Henry F i e l d i n g p ro -duced a s t r i k i n g v a r i e t y of works in h i s l i t e r a r y c a r e e r . A la rge p o r t i o n o f these works are f i l l e d w i th s a t i r e . The numerous f a r c e s , bur lesques and comedies F i e l d i n g produced as a d ramat is t r e l i e d h e a v i l y f o r t h e i r appeal on the s o c i a l , l i t e r a r y and p o l i t i c a l s a t i r e they con-t a i n e d . The i rony and d e r i s i o n in these works was d i r e c t e d a t s p e c i f i c elements in h i s s o c i e t y which F i e l d i n g f e l t mer i ted exposure. His pose was that of the Augustan s a t i r i s t r i d i c u l i n g the f o l l y he wi tnessed around him. F i e l d i n g ' s f i r s t at tempts at prose were a l s o s a t i r i c a l , w i th many of the t a rge ts the same as those he had a t tacked in h i s p l a y s . However, the nature o f h i s s a t i r e began to change, to take on moral over tones as he began to concent ra te on l a r g e r , more fundamental problems concern ing man and h is r e l a t i o n to s o c i e t y . Jonathan W i l d , F i e l d i n g ' s most s u s -ta ined s a t i r e in the Augustan manner, i s the f i r s t o f h i s works to f u l l y reveal the a u t h o r ' s p reoccupat ion w i th moral issues of h i s day. In t h i s s a t i r e F i e l d i n g ' s concern is w i th the p r i n c i p l e s that govern human behaviour and the whole ques t ion of good and e v i l in man's na tu re . Th is type of moral s a t i r e i s c a r r i e d f u r t h e r in Joseph Andrews and Tom  Jones where F i e l d i n g se ts out not on ly to r i d i c u l e s o c i e t y ' s f o l l i e s , but a l s o to po r t ray a way of l i f e as a norm of behaviour f o r the common man. He is no longer the s a t i r i s t concen t ra t i ng on the e v i l in s o c i e t y , f o r as n o v e l i s t he must po r t ray s o c i e t y w i th a l l i t s i n t r i c a t e b lend ings of good and e v i l . Even in h i s comic nove ls ,however , F i e l d i n g never comple te ly abandoned the ro le o f s a t i r i s t , and i t is the changing nature o f the s a t i r e in h i s works as he swi tched from dramat is t to n o v e l i s t that I d i s c u s s in t h i s t h e s i s . TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page I In t roduc t ion 1 11 A W r i t e r o f 'Dramat ick S a t i r e ' 10 The A u t h o r ' s Farce  The Tragedy of Tragedies  Pasqu i n I I I The Miscel1 an les 33 "Essay on No th ing" "Some PAPERS Proper to be Read before the R 1 S o c i e t y " IV Jonathan Wi ld 50 V Sat i r i s t to Novel i s t 70 A d i s c u s s i o n of Shame1 a , Joseph  Andrews, Tom Jones, and Amel i a . VI Conc lus ion 102 In t roduc t ion Henry F i e l d i n g i s best known as author of the two comic master-p i e c e s , Joseph Andrews and Tom Jones. His repu ta t ion as a novel i s t is we l l e s t a b l i s h e d , but h i s s tand ing as a s a t i r i s t remains h a z i l y d e f i n e d . A la rge p o r t i o n of h i s w r i t i n g s is now neg lec ted by the general reading p u b l i c who p r e f e r h i s novels to h i s dramat ic works or h i s essays in which h i s r o l e as s a t i r i s t is most e v i d e n t . However, F i e l d i n g ' s ex -pe r ience as a d ramat i s t and a w r i t e r of prose s a t i r e prov ided va luab le t r a i n i n g f o r h i s eventual ro le as a n o v e l i s t . In a l l h i s major works, i n c l u d i n g h i s comic n o v e l s , s a t i r e p lays a prominent p a r t . From a t echn i ca l v iewpo in t , ev idence of F i e l d i n g ' s dramat ic back-ground can be seen throughout h i s n o v e l s . The i r master fu l p l o t s , t h e i r c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n s , and the sense one has of the n a r r a t o r ' s complete con-t r o l , reveal the a u t h o r ' s e a r l y t r a i n i n g . But the s i m i l a r i t i e s go deeper, to the s p i r i t o f the works, f o r there i s the same d e s i r e to i n s t r u c t found in a l l the a u t h o r ' s w r i t i n g s . This i n s t r u c t i v e nature u s u a l l y mani fes ts i t s e l f in the s a t i r e the works c o n t a i n . F i e l d i n g experimented c o n t i n u a l l y w i th form, but h i s b a s i c sub jec t mat te r , and what may be c a l l e d h is moral p o s i t i o n , remained u n a l t e r e d . He was a c i v i c - m i n d e d w r i t e r , a man preoccupied w i th the s o c i e t y around him. He was a product of h i s age, a p e r f e c t example of the Augustan ideal of the p u b l i c man. As such a l l h i s works were e s s e n t i a l l y concerned w i th c o n t r a s t i n g the p o s s i b i l i t i e s that e x i s t e d f o r man as a r a t i o n a l being w i th the f o l l y that he a c t u a l l y committed. He a t tacked v i c e in a l l i t s forms, f ocuss i ng p a r t i c u l a r l y on the misuse of reason — f a l s e t as tes in l e a r n i n g , the abuse of knowledge - - any depar ture from what was g e n e r a l l y accepted as the norm of decent , r espons ib l e humanity. In h i s e a r l y w r i t i n g s s a t i r e was an end in i t s e l f , the exposure and r i d u c u l e of s a t i r i c t a rge ts was the u l t ima te i n t en t i on of the a r t i s t . And in the n o v e l s , as in Tom  Jones f o r example, s a t i r e remains an i n teg ra l par t of the work even though i t is f r e q u e n t l y used fo r the sake of the comic e f f e c t and lacks the f i e r c e r q u a l i t i e s of formal s a t i r e . Pass ing from the damning indic tment of Jonathan Wi ld to the d e l i g h t -fu l warmth and humour of Tom Jones would seem to o f f e r a study in op-p o s i t e s . One is formal s a t i r e , the o ther a "comic romance," or a "comic e p i c poem in p r o s e . " However, the s p i r i t of s a t i r e pervades even F i e l d i n g ' s comic nove l s . The change that F i e l d i n g underwent from drama-t i s t and s a t i r i s t to n o v e l i s t was ne i t he r a p a r t i c u l a r l y sudden nor a r a d i c a l one. He grew into the n o v e l i s t ' s ro le w i th lengthy works l i k e A Journey From Th i s Wor1d to the Next and Jonathan W i l d , and in so doing gen t l y shrugged o f f the s t r i c t e r con f ines of formal s a t i r e wi thout ever 3 comple te ly abandoning the ro le of s a t i r i s t . With the g rea te r freedom the novel a l lowed him, F i e l d i n g cou ld indulge h imse l f in the th ings he d id best — weave h i s i n t r i c a t e p l o t s , p rov ide leng thy , d e t a i l e d de-s c r i p t i o n of c h a r a c t e r , and lead h i s reader in to s u r p r i s e a f t e r s u r -p r i s e — and s t i l l s a t i s f y h i s d e s i r e to w r i t e i n s t r u c t i v e l y , to ex -pound a moral d o c t r i n e . Joseph And rews, Tom Jones , and Amel ia represent a more compre-hens ive statement of F i e l d i n g ' s a l r eady we l l e s t a b l i s h e d views on l i f e and human na tu re . They are a l l e s s e n t i a l l y moral works, but i t is in the two comic nove ls that F i e l d i n g most o f ten employs s a t i r e as an i n -strument in h i s ' m o r a l i z i n g . ' Ame1ia, h i s l a s t n o v e l , is the s e v e r e s t , a n g r i e s t s o c i a l comment F i e l d i n g makes, but i t i s , p a r a d o x i c a l l y , h i s l e a s t s a t i r i c a l . The b i t t e r n e s s of Amel ia is f a r removed from the s a t i r i c ind ic tment of Jonathan W i l d . In the l a t t e r , the highwayman-hero emerges as a th rea ten ing s a t a n i c f i g u r e , one who is so comple te ly e v i l that he must be ha ted , yet one so cunning and decep t i ve that he must be feared and even admired. Jonathan Wi ld i s b r i l l i a n t s a t i r e , Amel ia suggests a somewhat more f r u s t r a t e d F i e l d i n g lament ing s o c i e t y ' s e v i l s in sent imenta l f a s h i o n . It would seem t h a t , w i th each novel he wro te , F i e l d i n g drew f u r t h e r away from the pure s a t i r e that marked h i s e a r l i e r works and c l o s e r to a form of moral d i d a c t i c i s m . The t rans fo rmat ion from s a t i r i s t to n o v e l i s t i nvo lves a s h i f t in the a r t i s t ' s p e r s p e c t i v e . A change of focus o c c u r s . The author no longer emphasizes s o l e l y the e v i l in h i s s o c i e t y . The s a t i r i s t exposes the f o l l y he w i tnesses around him, the n o v e l i s t adds new dimensions u n t i l the exposure of v i c e becomes on l y par t o f a much l a r g e r p lan that i nvo lves a po r t r aya l o f good as we l l as e v i l . However, because the i n s t r u c t i v e s a t i r e is cen t ra l to the n o v e l i s t ' s purpose, I t h ink one can view F i e l d i n g ' s nove ls as having a s a t i r i c co re . In h i s n o v e l s , F i e l d i n g is no l ess in tent upon p o i n t i n g out man's shortcomings and exposing hypoc r i sy in a l l i t s forms than he was in h i s p o l i t i c a l f a r ces or h i s s a t i r i c a l e s s a y s . His approach, however, i s r a d i c a l l y d i f f e r e n t . The s a t i r i s t s i n g l e s out h i s t a rge ts and se ts out to des t roy them w i th any means a t h i s d i s p o s a l , the n o v e l i s t , on the o ther hand, is not con f ined to d e s c r i b i n g the e v i l in h i s s o c i e t y , he can be as l i b e r a l w i th h i s p r a i s e as w i th h i s c r i t i c i s m . One modern view of the s a t i r i s t is that he presents the reader w i th the e v i l , b lowing i t up in a l l i t s u g l i n e s s in an attempt to convey the t e r r i f y i n g th rea t he f e e l s i t represents to s o c i e t y . By concen t ra t i ng on the e v i l the s a t i r i s t imp l ies what the a l t e r n a t i v e , the norm of behav iour , should be. For F i e l d i n g , and fo r w r i t e r s o f the e igh teen th century on the whole, t h i s norm was remarkably c o n s i s t e n t . It had i t s roots in C h r i s -t r i a n t r a d i t i o n and was based on laws d i c t a t e d by nature and by reason. It proposed a r e f i n e d , c u l t u r e d , d i g n i f i e d way of l i f e as an end to be d e s i r e d by any man w i th the power and the w i l l to reason. In formal s a t i r e t h i s norm is impl ied or s ta ted more than i l l u s -t r a t e d . In Jonathan Wi ld t h i s is the case . The r e a d e r ' s a t t e n t i o n is r i v e t t e d on the e v i l p e r s o n i f i e d in Wi ld h imse l f . The Hear t f rees en ter the l i s t s in whi te armour, so to speak, but they are r e p r e s e n t a t i v e f i g u r e s o f good, used on ly to emphasize the thorough e v i l of the h i g h -5 wayman. The norm is impl ied ra ther than por t rayed — somewhere between the po les that Hear t f ree and Wi ld represent l i e s the d e s i r e d norm of behaviour f o r the common man. The s a t i r i s t ' s way is to focus on the e v i l which he is t r y i n g to warn h i s readers o f . He presents a v i v i d , f r i g h t e n i n g image of the l u r k i n g danger. F i e l d i n g depar ts from t h i s method in h i s n o v e l s . For here the author g ives us as h i s cen t ra l f i g u r e s cha rac te rs l i k e Parson Adams or Tom Jones who are themselves mix tures of good and e v i l , and t he re fo re more than symbol ic f i g u r e s . In t h e i r adven tu res , Adams and Tom cons tan t l y come in con tac t wi th fo rces of good as we l l as e v i l , a l l o w i n g the na r ra to r to po r t ray the b l e s s i n g s of the former as we l l as reveal the u g l i n e s s of the l a t t e r . What is presented is not the s a t i r i s t ' s wor ld of b l ack and w h i t e , but the m u l t i - c o l o u r e d wor ld of the n o v e l i s t . In F i e l d i n g ' s nove ls i t is not an impl ied norm, but an i l l u s t r a t e d one, i t is not s t a t e d , i t is por t rayed through example. As a d r a m a t i s t , however, F i e l d i n g ' s concern was w i th the e v i l i t s e l f , not w i th p o r t r a y i n g an a l t e r n a t i v e to the e v i l as he was l a t e r to do in h i s n o v e l s . In h i s dramat ic ca reer and in h i s f i r s t at tempts at prose F i e l d i n g u t i l i z e d a l l the t oo l s of the s a t i r i s t ' s t r ade . His e a r l y f a rces and bur lesques enjoyed immense success . In The A u t h o r ' s Farce and The Tragedy of T r a g e d i e s , F i e l d i n g r i d i c u l e d the t as tes o f a f ash ionab le s o c i e t y which was l a v i s h i n g both i t s t ime and p r a i s e on f r i v o l o u s en te r ta inmen ts . Pantomine, tumbl ing e x h i b i t i o n s , and I t a l i a n opera were among the d i v e r s i o n s most loud ly applauded by the beau monde. The young d ramat is t was a l i g n i n g h imse l f w i th w r i t e r s l i k e Dryden and 6 Pope and Gay in waging a war aga ins t d u l l n e s s as d i s p l a y e d in d e c l i n i n g l i t e r a r y standards and f a l s e t a s t e s . His concern , as had been that of the famous S c r i b l e r u s C1ub(1713)> was w i th the general misuse of reason. His p lays depended l a r g e l y on the contemporaneity o f the s a t i r e they conta ined fo r t h e i r success . They were w i t t y and sharp l y s a t i r i c a l , f o r they were w r i t t e n in a c r i t i c a l age, one in which s o c i a l hab i t s were p e r p e t u a l l y s a t i r i z e d and l i t e r a t u r e cons tan t l y c r i t i c i z e d . Much of the s a t i r e o f the e a r l y p lays was d i r e c t e d at the l i t e r a r y scene, p a r t i c u l a r l y at the hack w r i t e r s of Grub S t r e e t . In Pasquin F i e l d i n g found a new f o r t e — p o l i t i c a l s a t i r e . He had i nt roduced pol 11 i ca1 sat i re in the ea r1 i er Don Qu i xote i n Engl and w i th favourab le r e s u l t s , but s t i l l the recep t ion of Pasquin exceeded a l l e x p e c t a t i o n . As in h i s o ther p o l i t i c a l fa rces F i e l d i n g set out to expose the co r rup t i on that e x i s t e d in the Walpole a d m i n i s t r a t i o n , but l i k e a l l good s a t i r e F i e l d i n g ' s i r o n i c denouncement becomes un i ve rsa l in i t s a p p l i c a t i o n u n t i l the t a rge t is no longer one v i l l a i n but a l l v i l l a i n s , i t is not j u s t the c o r r u p t i o n and g ra f t of one government, but o f a l l governments. When F i e l d i n g turned to prose he cont inued w r i t i n g in a s a t i r i c v e i n . Many of h i s t a rge ts remained the same, but he began to experiment w i th new forms, the persona, e p i s t l e s , dream v i s i o n s , mock s c h o l a r s h i p , bur lesque c r i t i c i s m , mock encomia and numerous o t h e r s . Several of h i s works in t h i s pe r iod were cas t in the mold o f L u c i a n , and many were not u n l i k e the essays of Swi f t both in the p o l i s h o f t h e i r prose and in general tone. In t h i s pe r iod a l s o F i e l d i n g began w r i t i n g moral essays 7 on sub jec ts that were to become major themes in h i s n o v e l s , and the m o r a l i s t in him began to emerge a longs ide the s a t i r i s t . Jonathan Wi ld represents a cu r ious landmark in F i e l d i n g ' s c a r e e r . It is a cu lm ina t i on of the type of formal s a t i r e he had been w r i t i n g in h i s p lays and e s s a y s , and a t the same time i t con ta ins many elements that look forward to h i s career as n o v e l i s t . C e r t a i n l y Jonathan Wi ld represents F i e l d i n g ' s most sus ta ined formal s a t i r e . W i l d , the a n t i -hero , emerges as a th rea t to any s o c i e t y . He is the ' g rea t man 1 , the p o l i t i c i a n , the cu t th roa t businessman in f a c t , he is any person who has r i s e n to power by t ramp l ing on the r i g h t s and f e e l i n g s of o t h e r s . He is the man ipu la to r , the man who p lays w i th human l i v e s as i f they were designed s p e c i f i c a l l y f o r h i s own use. The f e e l i n g s of o thers mean noth ing to him fo r he is concerned w i th Wi ld and Wi ld a l one . His very immora l i ty is the source of h i s s t r e n g t h , and i t is s o c i e t y ' s i n a b i l i t y to cope w i th j u s t such an inhuman product that i s so f r i g h t e n i n g . Jonathan Wi ld is r e l e n t l e s s , b i t t e r s a t i r e . There is a s i ng leness of purpose in the work that is remin iscen t o f S w i f t ' s most powerful s a t i r e s . Yet in s p i t e o f t h i s , there are elements in Jonathan Wi ld which po in t forward to Joseph Andrews and Tom Jones. Most obvious among these s i m i l a r i t i e s is F i e l d i n g ' s use of the mock-hero ic . He had of course made use o f t h i s dev ice in Tom Thumb, but i t is in the s to r y of Wi ld that one sees F i e l d i n g us ing the ep i c s i m i l e and i n f l a t e d language w i th some of the same e f f e c t that he was l a t e r to use them in h i s comic n o v e l s . 8 With Joseph Andrews F i e l d i n g adopted a new mode of w r i t i n g . What began as a r e a c t i o n to R i cha rdson ' s Pamela evolved in to a unique form of moral s a t i r e which F i e l d i n g couched in what he termed a 'mock e p i c poem in p r o s e ' . His r o l e i s no longer s t r i c t l y that of s a t i r i s t , f o r as n o v e l i s t he must be a f a r more gen ia l e n t e r t a i n e r . In h i s comic novels the s a t i r e func t i ons f o r the sake of the comedy ra ther than fo r the s a t i r i c e f f e c t a l one . Th is is p a r t i c u l a r l y t rue in the case of cha rac te r p o r t r a i t s , but even when the issues are l a r g e r , when F i e l d i n g is a t t a c k i n g a g rea te r e v i l , when s o c i e t y i t s e l f is being c a l l e d to task f o r s i n s committed, much of the s t i n g of the s a t i r e is removed s imply because echoes of laughter are s t i l l r i ng i ng in the r e a d e r ' s e a r s . It i s good-«natured s a t i r e w i th the exposure and the r i d i c u l e c a r r i e d out in the most congenia l f a s h i o n . However, even though the b i t e of the s a t i r e is o f t e n reduced to a p l a y f u l n i p , the s p i r i t of s a t i r e s t i l l pervades these n o v e l s . The a r c h - v i l l a in remains the h y p o c r i t e , the p r e -tender . P r i d e and van i t y in a l l t h e i r f o o l i s h forms are c o n t i n u a l l y s i n g l e d out and unmasked. It is d e l i g h t f u l to t r ace the exposure , to see j u s t how deep F i e l d i n g ' s understanding of human nature pene t ra ted . His s a t i r i c t a rge ts remained remarkably constant throughout h i s c a r e e r , in keeping w i th h is f i rm moral v iews. It is my i n t en t i on to d i scuss a number o f F i e l d i n g ' s works, con-c e n t r a t i n g on the s a t i r e they c o n t a i n . As a d ramat i s t and a w r i t e r of essays F i e l d i n g deserves to be ranked as a s k i l l e d s a t i r i s t , and to t h i s reader at l e a s t , Jonathan Wi ld remains one of the f i e r c e s t , most s u c c e s s f u l l y sus ta ined s a t i r e s of the p e r i o d . In t r a c i n g F i e l d i n g ' s 9 career from s a t i r i s t to n o v e l i s t i t is i n t e r e s t i n g to note the unique p o s i t i o n the t a l e of Wi ld o c c u p i e s . It is the best of h i s formal s a t i r e s and at the same time i t con ta ins many foreshadowings of h i s l a t e n t power as a n o v e l i s t . When F i e l d i n g turned to the novel he re -mained a s a t i r i s t a t hear t . A l though he was no longer w r i t i n g formal s a t i r e , and the u l t ima te e f f e c t of h i s two ep i cs o f the road was comic ra ther than s a t i r i c , s t i l l these novels were f i l l e d wi th i n s t r u c t i v e s a t i r e c a l c u l a t e d towards d e s c r i b i n g or e s t a b l i s h i n g a mode of moral conduct . A Wr i t e r of 'Dramat ick S a t i r e 1 Henry F i e l d i n g began h is l i t e r a r y ca reer as a d rama t i s t . His comedies, f a r c e s , bu r lesques , and b a l l a d operas would be s u f f i c i e n t to secure him a p o s i t i o n in E n g l i s h l e t t e r s even i f f a t e had not s teered him towards the novels on which most of h i s popular fame is based. In the n ine -yea r span from 1728 u n t i l the L i c e n s i n g Act cut shor t h i s dramat ic ca reer in 1737, F i e l d i n g produced twenty-odd p l a y s , many of wh ich , 1 ike Don Q,u i xote i n Eng 1 and , Tom Thumb or Pasqu i n , enjoyed immense p o p u l a r i t y . He is the s i n g l e most important f i g u r e in the thea te r of the 17301s. The contemporaneity of h i s p lays makes them i nva luab le s o c i a l documents. With h is v igorous s t y l e he records London l i f e , e s p e c i a l l y that of the beau monde, in language that is b r i s k and c a p t i v a t i n g . F i e l d i n g d i sp l ayed the age ' s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c concern w i th p o l i t i c s and f a s h i o n , and w i th the general s t a t e o f s o c i e t y in regard to c u l t u r e — p a r t i c u l a r l y the much feared degenerat ion of the standards of l i t e r a t u r e . A l l h i s comedies of f ash ionab le l i f e and h i s p o l i t i c a l 11 and t h e a t r i c a l bur lesques r e f l e c t h i s concern w i th s o c i e t y and i t s many f r a i l t i e s and v i c e s . In the bur lesques of The A u t h o r ' s Fa rce , Tom Thumb, Pasqu i n , and The H i s t o r i c a l R e g i s t e r , F i e l d i n g c rea ted a genre f o r h i m s e l f , the genre which he cal . led 'Dramat ick S a t i r e . 1 The Au tho r ' s Farce was f i r s t performed on March 30, 1730. It was h i s t h i r d dramat ic attempt^ and gave many h i n t s of the a u t h o r ' s l a t e n t power as a s a t i r i s t . By h i s cho ice of the pseudonymn " S c r i b l e r u s Secundus," F i e l d i n g i nd i ca ted h is s a t i r i c a l d e s i g n , fo r he was p l a y f u l l y a s s o c i a t i n g h i s name w i th Pope and S w i f t , the founders of the famous S c r i b l e r u s Club whose members took i t upon themselves to r i d i c u l e s o c i a l and l i t e r a r y abuses. The p lay is d i v i d e d in to two p a r t s , the f i r s t po r t rays the l o t of a young p l a y w r i g h t , L u c k l e s s , who is dependent upon t h e a t r i c a l managers and b o o k s e l l e r s f o r h i s l i v e l i h o o d , and the second p a r t , "The P leasures of the Town," d e p i c t s the rehearsa l of a dramat ic enter ta inment r i d i -c u l i n g the amusements of the f ash ionab le wo r l d . It was the t a s t e of h i s s o c i e t y , more than any th ing e l s e , that F i e l d i n g was ho ld ing up to p u b l i c censure , f o r the f ash ionab le enter ta inment o f the day cons i s ted of I t a l i a n ope ra , f a r c e s , pantomines, tumbl ing e x h i b i t i o n s and bombastic t r a g e d i e s . The drama — at l e a s t in the hands of w r i t e r s l i k e Gay and F i e l d i n g — shared w i th non-dramat ic l i t e r a t u r e the e a r l y e igh teen th -Fo l low ing L£ve_j j ]_Sevej^^ and The Temple Beau (1730). 12 century d i s p o s i t i o n towards s a t i r e , and there was no be t te r p lace to show up the a b s u r d i t i e s and f r i v o l o u s enter ta inments being a s s o c i a t e d w i th the stage than on the stage i t s e l f . F i e l d i n g feared that h i s age was one of c u l t u r a l d e c l i n e and that t h i s degenerat ion was nowhere more obvious than in the l i t e r a t u r e and drama popular w i th the s o c i a l e l i t e . The f a c t that these s p e c t a c l e s , the puppet shows and pantomines, f o r example, were so popu la r , was the cause fo r F i e l d i n g ' s outrage and the ob jec t of h i s a t t a c k in The A u t h o r ' s Farce . Because o f t h e i r p o p u l a r i t y , these d i s p l a y s were taken up by the t h e a t r i c a l managers s t r i c t l y as good bus iness ven tu res . No concern was shown fo r a r t i s t i c m e r i t . However, many a r t i s t s r e g i s t e r e d a l oud , c l e a r p ro tes t aga ins t t h i s d e c l i n e of l i t e r a r y s tandards , and F i e l d i n g ' s p r o t e s t s were as a r t i c u l a t e as any. On open ing , the p lay had as i t s immediate s a t i r i c a l t a rge ts Col ley Cibber and Robert W i l k s , both actor-managers of Drury Lane. In the r e -v i sed v e r s i o n a change was made in the s u b s t i t u t i o n of Theophi lus Cibber f o r Wi lks — a change which must have added much in the way of comic enjoyment, f o r F i e l d i n g ' s audience seemed to l i k e no th ing more than see ing the Cibbers r i d i c u l e d . Whi le such treatment was q u i t e personal and at t imes even b i t t e r , i t s t i l l rose above mere abuse to serve the l a r g e r purpose of the s a t i r e . As one c r i t i c po in ts ou t . They (the Cibbers) are made to serve a symbol ic f unc t i on s i m i l a r to that served l a t e r by Col ley Cibber in the rev i sed Dune i ad , they are types of the thea te r manager, the d i c t a t o r o f dramat ic a r t in that t ime of l i t e r a r y d e p r a v i t y , at once pe rcep t i ve judges of the p u b l i c t as te and headst rong, va in t y ran t s who 13 p r i de themselves on c a p r i c i o u s conduct . The f a c t that the Cibbers were we l l known to the audience heightened the s a t i r e ' s immediate a p p e a l , but on the l a r g e r s c a l e they were s tock v i l l a i n s , j u s t as young L u c k l e s s , the impoverished p l a y w r i g h t , rep re -sented a t y p i c a l v i c t i m of t h e i r v i l l a i n y . Witmore admonishes Luck less f o r a t tempt ing to be a w r i t e r in such an age; S 'dea th ! in an age of l ea rn i ng and t rue p o l i t e n e s s , when a man might succeed by h i s m e r i t , there would be some encourage-ment. But now, when par ty and p re j ud i ce ca r r y a l l before them, when l e a r n i n g is d e c r i e d , w i t not understood, when the thea t res are puppet-shows, and the comedians b a l l a d - s i n g e r s , when f o o l s lead the town, would a man th ink to t h r i v e by h i s w i t 7 If thou must w r i t e , w r i t e nonsense, w r i t e ope ras , w r i t e Hur lo -thrumbos, set up an o ra to ry and preach nonsense, and you may meet w i th encouragement enough. Be p ro fane , be s c u r r i l o u s , be immodest...3 The angry Witmore cont inues in t h i s v e i n , a t t a c k i n g in h i s ou tburs t s o l d i e r s , p h y s i c i a n s , lawyers , c o u r t i e r s , and f l a t t e r i n g poe ts . He damns the p r a c t i c e of patronage by t e l l i n g Luck less i t is the on ly way to succeed in l e t t e r s in such an age; " I f thou w i l t , w r i t e aga ins t a l l these reasons, get a pa t r on , be pimp to some wor th less man of q u a l i t y , John L o f t i s , Comedy and Soc ie ty from Congreve to F i e l d i n g (Stanford U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1959), p. 40 . 3 The A u t h o r ' s Fa rce , The Complete Works o f Henry F i e l d i n g , ed . W i l l i a m E. Henley (New York, 1902), V I I I , 204, Act I, v. - A l l F i e l d i n g c i t a t i o n s w i l l be taken from the Henley e d i t i o n w i th the excep t ion of re ferences to the P re face to the Misee l 1 an ies in my d i s c u s s i o n of Jonathan W i l d . 14 w r i t e panegyr ics on him, f l a t t e r him w i th as many v i r t u e s as he has v i c e s " ( V I I I, 205). L u c k l e s s 1 s attempts to s o l i c i t a p u b l i s h e r p rov ide dramat ic j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r the i n t r oduc t i on of scenes from l i t e r a r y Grub S t r e e t . Here, a long w i th the devas ta t i ng r i d i c u l e of the C i b b e r s , who appear as the Marp lays , there is a d e s c r i p t i o n o f a b o o k s e l l e r ' s shop w i th severa l hacks busy a t tasks ass igned by t h e i r master , the b o o k s e l l e r . F i e l d i n g p r o t e s t s the concept ion of l i t e r a t u r e as a commodity w i th a marketable v a l u e , sugges t ing that t h i s concep t i on , he ld in the p lay by both the b o o k s e l l e r and the thea te r managers, is a c o n t r i b u t i n g f a c t o r to the p r e v a i l i n g l i t e r a r y degeneracy. With cha rac te rs l i k e Bookweight, Dash, Quibb le and B lo tpage , F i e l d i n g p rov ides a comical render ing of the hack w r i t e r . To these cha rac te rs l i t e r a t u r e is a commodity to be supp l i ed in the q u i c k e s t , but not n e c e s s a r i l y most e f f i c i e n t , manner p o s s i b l e . Greek mottoes, L a t i n mot toes, even second-hand mottoes out of the Spec ta to r , a l l a re marketable goods to be bought and so ld acco rd ing to the law of supply and demand. F i e l d i n g a t t acks in a s l i g h t l y more j o c u l a r f ash ion than Pope those people who buy books merely fo r show. Compare Pope 's Moral Essay IV; His Study! w i th what Authors is i t s t o r ' d ? In Books, not Au tho rs , cu r ious is my Lo rd , To a l l t h e i r dated Backs he turns you round, These A ldus p r i n t e d , those Du Sue i l has bound. Lo Some are Ve l lom, and the res t as good For a l l h i s Lordsh ip knows, but they are Wood. (133-138) E p i s t l e s to Several Persons (Moral E s s a y s ) , - Twickenham e d i t i o n , ed . F. W. Bateson (London, 1951), pp. 145-146. C i t a t i o n s from Pope in my paper are to t h i s e d i t i o n . 15 Bookweight, as a s e l l e r of books< and one who knows the marke t ' s t r e n d s , i s e x p l i c i t about the k ind of books that s e l l and those that do not ; Give me a good handsome la rge volume, w i th a f u l l p romis ing t i t l e - p a g e at the head of i t , p r i n t e d on a good paper and l e t t e r , the whole we l l bound and g i l t , and I ' l l warrant i t s s e l l i n g — You have the common e r r o r of au tho rs , who th ink people buy books to read — No, no, books are on ly bought to f u r n i s h l i b r a r i e s , as p i c t u r e s and g l a s s e s , and beds and c h a i r s , are f o r o ther rooms. (VI I, 221, Act I I , v) F i e l d i n g has genuine fun w i th the Cibbers wh i l e at the same time p o i n t i n g out the th rea t such people represent to the s tandards of h i s a r t . Marplay j u n i o r t e l l s us what t h e i r ro le in t h i s whole bus iness of stage and drama i s ; My fa the r and I, s i r , are a couple of p o e t i c a l t a i l o r s ; when a> p lay is brought us , we cons ide r i t as a t a i l o r does h i s coa t , we cut i t , s i r , we cut i t , and l e t me t e l l you,we have the exact measure of the town, we know how to f i t t h e i r t a s t e . (VI I, 207, Ac t I, v i ) We are made to v i s u a l i z e t h i s pompous young a s s , Marplay j u n i o r , in a l l h i s van i t y and s i l l i n e s s , boas t ing o f h i s one "sma l l s a l l y in to P a r n a s s u s , " " a so r t of f l y i n g leap over He l i con" (V I I I, 207). Young Marp lay ' s one attempt had been damned by the c r i t i c s so he w i s e l y turned to more rewarding p u r s u i t s . The scene between f a t h e r and son is f i l l e d w i th a good-natured but ex t remely personal a t t a c k on the hapless p a i r . Marplay sen io r re fuses to accept L u c k l e s s ' s p lay not because of any p a r t i c u l a r f a u l t i t may possess , but because there is no th ing " c o e r c i v e " to h i s " p a s s i o n s " in i t . Moreover, he "confesses to h i s son when ques-t ioned about the p l a y . 16 It may be a very good one, f o r aught I know; but I am reso lved s i nce the town w i l l not rece ive any of mine, they s h a l l have none from any o t h e r . I ' l l keep them to t h e i r o l d d i e t . (V I I I , 215, Act I I , i i) With a l l the su r face laughter and ga ie t y of the f a r c e there is the danger of m i s s i n g , or at l e a s t of shrugging o f f , the se r i ous ove r -tones that accompany i t . Here the m a l i c i o u s reasoning behind t h i s p a i r ' s a c t i o n s , together w i th the s e l f i s h n e s s revealed in t h e i r keeping back authors who show any m e r i t , are the e v i l s the s a t i r i s t i s p o i n t i n g a t . The s a t i r i c e f f e c t de r i ves from the s i t u a t i o n i t s e l f . The dramat ic image is t h e r e , a l i v e , on stage before the aud ience. The unde rcu t t i ng and d e f l a t i o n of the image, as we l l as the exposure of the fou lness and hypoc r i sy that 1 ie beneath the su r face of t h i n g s - a s - t h e y - s e e m - t o - b e , are accompl ished through d ia logue and a c t i o n . The irony and the s a t i r e i s u s u a l l y b l a t a n t l y obv ious , but the l ack of s u b t l e t y does not de t rac t from the f i n a l e f f e c t . As the se r i ous is reduced to the absu rd , the whole s i t u a t i o n takes on suggest ions of the r i d i c u l o u s and the s a t i r i s t ' s r o l e is f u l f i l l e d . The p lay is c h a r a c t e r i z e d by a l i g h t n e s s of tone, but even w i th i t s d e c e i v i n g a i r of ban te r , the se r iousness of the a u t h o r ' s i m p l i c a t i o n s i s never doubted. The puppet show, "The P leasu res o f the Town," is a d ramat i za t i on of the major theme of the Dune i ad . Luck less t e l l s us " t he c h i e f bus iness is the e l e c t i o n of an a r c h - p o e t , o r , as o thers c a l l him, a poet l a u r e a t e , to the Goddess of Nonsense"(VI I I, 228) . Those contending f o r the 1aurea tesh ip , Don T raged io , S i r F a r c i c a l Comic, Dr. O r a t o r , S i g n i o r Opera, and Monsieur Pan ton ine , are p e r s o n i f i c a t i o n s of the r u l i n g London p l e a s u r e s . L i k e Pope, a l though w i th l ess emphasis, F i e l d i n g a l l u d e s in d ia logue to the i n c r e a s i n g prominence o f Nonsense (or Dulness) as the ex tens ion of the p leasures of the bus iness community to the f a s h i o n -ab le end of town; "My lo rd mayor has shortened the time of Bartholomew F a i r in S m i t h f i e l d , " e x p l a i n s a poet to a b o o k s e l l e r , "and so they are reso lved to keep i t a l l the year round a t the o ther End of the town" (V I I I , 235). The p o s i t i o n of a rch-poe t or poet l au rea te is u l t i m a t e l y f i l l e d by the ghost o f S i g n i o r Opera. Queen Nonsense — l i k e a l l o ther f o o l i s h women — is enamoured w i th Opera and reso lved that he s h a l l have the crown. The i m p l i c a t i o n is that absurd as some of the o ther e n t e r t a i n -ments may be, there is r e a l l y no con tes t . Opera is most e n t i t l e d to the p o s i t i o n bes ide Queen Nonsense. Mrs. Novel s ings h is v i c t o r y song. A i r XX Away each meek pretender f l i e s , Opera thou hast gained the p r i z e . Nonsense g ra te fu l s t i l l must own, That thou best s u p p o r t ' s t her th rone. (V I I I , 252) The ending of the p lay bur lesques a l l happy endings wrought through imposs ib le chance and c o i n c i d e n c e . A f t e r the rehearsa l of the puppet-show we re turn to the s to ry of Luck less and H a r r i e t , but i t is on ly a f o r m a l i t y . The reader suddenly becomes aware that he has not l e f t the realm of Nonsense at a l l but has on ly moved to another par t o f her k i n g -dom... In a wh i r lw ind of d i s cove ry i t is revealed that Luck less i s a c t u a l l y the long l o s t p r i nce o f Bantam, who had on ly been t raced by the ' l u c k i e s t ' chance. At t h i s t ime ly moment a message a r r i v e s announcing the death of h i s f a t h e r , the k i n g , so Luck less is now Henry I, King of Bantam. 18 But i t does not end the re . Punch, one of the ac to r s of the puppet-show revea ls that he is "no common f e l l o w , " that he is in r e a l i t y Mrs. Money-wood's son and the p r i n c e of B r e n t f o r d . Mrs. Moneywood, the Queen of t h i s land of B r e n t f o r d , had been fo rced to f l e e w i th her c h i l d r e n when the k ing was over thrown. Th is makes H a r r i e t p r i ncess of B r e n t f o r d . Even Joan , who is d i scovered to be Punch 's w i f e , f i n d s h e r s e l f a k i n g ' s daughter . It i s the happ ies t o f a l l happy endings w i th everyone par t of one b ig happy royal f a m i l y . The p 1 a y - w i t h i n - t h e - p l a y merges w i th the p lay i t s e l f and a l l is nonsense. The preposterous ending p rov ides a f i t t i n g c l imax f o r the s a t i r e . What is impl ied is that the t as tes of s o c i e t y are no less preposterous than the p l a y ' s ending and the cour t of Nonsense is the r u l i n g cour t of the day. It is the audience even more than the enter ta inments themselves that deserves the censure o f the s a t i r i s t . It is they whom he a t t acks in h i s pro logue. L i k e the tame animals designed f o r show, You have your cues to c l a p , as they to bow, Taught to commend, your judgements have no share , By chance you guess a r i g h t , by chance you e r r . (V I I I , 193) With The A u t h o r ' s Farce F i e l d i n g committed h imse l f to a r o l e he was never r e a l l y to abandon, that o f s o c i a l s a t i r i s t . The p lay was on ly m i l d l y s u c c e s s f u l , but i t i nd i ca ted the d i r e c t i o n F i e l d i n g ' s t a l e n t s were to take . The Tragedy of Traqed ies or The L i fe and Death of Tom Thumb the  Great is F i e l d i n g ' s most success fu l bur lesque of he ro i c t ragedy. The p lay is f i l l e d w i th f l o r i d d i c t i o n , imposs ib le p l o t s and s i t u a t i o n s that 19 are pregnant w i th v i o l e n c e , superhuman c h a r a c t e r s , and l o f t y sen t imen ts , a l l of which are v u l g a r i z e d and exaggerated to a b s u r d i t y . Tom Thumb was at f i r s t performed a long w i th The A u t h o r ' s F a r c e , but u l t i m a t e l y i t became much more s u c c e s s f u l . As the brunt of the s a t i r e was d i r e c t e d at the type of h e r o i c drama c u l t i v a t e d by Dryden, Banks and Lee and t h e i r f o l l o w e r s , the p lay d id not r e l y q u i t e so h e a v i l y on l o c a l h i s -t o r i c a l f a c t as d id h is p o l i t i c a l s a t i r e s . The parody was the main v e h i c l e of the a t t a c k , but F i e l d i n g s t i l l was ab le to get in a few th rus t s a t h i s contemporar ies that had noth ing to do w i th t h e i r w r i t i n g of h e r o i c t ragedy . In h i s o r i g i n a l p re face to the t ragedy F i e l d i n g again made Cibber one of h i s v i c t i m s by p r a i s i n g h imse l f (as author) and h i s a c t o r s , and then throwing " l i t t l e Tom Thumb on the town" j u s t as the poet l au rea te had thrown The Provoked Husband a t the fee t of her Majes ty . " ' In the a l t e r e d e d i t i o n of 1731> H. S c r i b l e r u s Secundus makes use instead of the learned s t y l e of Dr. Bent ley and P ro fesso r Burmann of Leyden. The p re face i t s e l f is a masterp iece of s a t i r e and humor. The persona f i r s t remarks on the d i v i d e d op in i on concern ing the mer i t o f the p l a y ; W h i l s t some p u b l i c l y a f f i rmed that no author cou ld produce so f i n e a p iece but Mr. P , o thers have w i th as much vehem-ence i n s i s t e d that no one cou ld w r i t e anyth ing so bad but Mr. F ( IX, 7) Wi lbur L. C r o s s , The H i s t o r y o f Henry F i e l d i n g (New Haven, 1918), I, 90. 20 He mentions that the tragedy had been celebrated with great applause at Amsterdam where i t was presented under the t i t l e of Mynheer Vander Thumb, and received with "that reverent and s i l e n t attention which becometh an audience at a deep tragedy"(IX, 7 ) . In this work we begin to sense the sheer exuberance and humor that are so much a part of Fielding's most mature works — and of his s a t i r e . There is a new playfulness and control in this iconic preface that was not found in The Author's Farce. H. Scriblerus Secundus t e l l s us that there are two reasons for his writing the preface. The f i r s t is out of a sense of duty aroused by the f i r s t " s u r r e p t i t i o u s copy" that had been published, and the second, he t e l l s us, is the result of knowing myself more capable of doing j u s t i c e to our Author than any other man, as I have given myself more pains to a r r i v e at a thorough understanding of t h i s l i t t l e piece, having for ten years together read nothing else, in which time, I think, I may modestly presume, with the he'lp of my English di c t i o n a r y , to comprehend a l l the meaning of every word in i t . (IX, 8) He ignores the question as to whether or not the piece was o r i g i n a l l y written by Shakespeare, except to remark pointedly that i f i t had been the work of such an eminent hand, i t s merit would have been considerably greater with many of the age who buy and commend what they read from "an i m p l i c i t f a i t h in the author only"(lX, 9). The narrator proceeds to defend the tragedy against a l l attacks. He praises i t s h i s t o r i c a l accuracy, the essence of the tragedy i t s e l f , the characters, the s e n t i -ment and d i c t i o n . But his defense serves only to undermine any chances for c r e d i b i l i t y the play might have possessed. Typical of this disastrous 21 process are h i s remarks about t ragedy. "What can be so proper fo r t ragedy as a set of b ig sounding words, so con t r i ved together as to convey no meaning? which I s h a l l one day or o ther prove to be the sub-l ime of Long inus . " ( IX, 12) S c r i b l e r u s damns h imse l f and the p lay w i th every sentence. His at tempts a t p r a i s e have e x a c t l y the oppos i te e f f e c t . He t e l l s us about the au thor ; He is very r a r e l y w i t h i n s i g h t through the whole p l a y , e i t h e r r i s i n g h igher than the eye of your unders tanding can soa r , o r s i n k i n g lower than i t ca re th to s toop. ( IX, 12) The pre face sets the tone f o r the whole s a t i r e . Us ing a dev ice popular w i th s a t i r i s t s of a l l ages , F i e l d i n g makes h is persona a prime ta rge t f o r the s a t i r i c a t t a c k . In t h i s way he in t roduces the audience to the atmosphere of the r i d i c u l o u s before even e n t e r i n g the p lay proper . H. S c r i b l e r u s Secundus is the t y p i c a l hack w r i t e r , a man who d i s p l a y s the f a l s e l e a r n i n g , p re tens ion and pomposity that the s a t i r i s t d e t e s t s . The pe rsona 1 s bland lack of s e n s i t i v i t y is c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of the product of Grub St ree t that F i e l d i n g , a long wi th Swi f t and Pope, f e l t was lower ing the standards of the 1 i t e r a t u r e of the day. Turning to the p lay i t s e l f , we f i n d from beginn ing to end a r i c h success ion of bur lesque dec lamat ions , he ro i c ou tbu rs ts of t r a g i c or tender p a s s i o n , and mock he ro i c s i m i l e s . For almost every l i n e of t h i s F i e l d i n g re fe r s us , through the mock pedant ic no tes , to a passage in some he ro i c t ragedy we l l known to the p laygoers of h i s t ime. The opening 22 l i n e s spoken by Doodle and Noodle are i n d i c a t i v e o f what is to f o l l o w . From the f i r s t r i d i c u l o u s images of the sun " l i k e a beau in a new b i r t h - d a y s u i t " and nature wear ing her " u n i v e r s a l g r i n , " u n t i l the f i n a l v i s i o n of K i n g , Queen, Huncamunca, Noodle, Doodle and Cleora a l l l y i n g " s c a t t e r ' d and o ' e r t h rown" l i k e a pack of c a r d s , the h e r o i c does not stand a chance. The s i n g l e use of the word " g r i n " is enough to add a note o f madness to the whole performance. The suggest ion that th ings are f a r from normal becomes f a c t when Noodle r e p l i e s : " T h i s day, 0 Mr. Doodle, i s a day / Indeed! — A day, we never saw b e f o r e . 1 1 ( IX, 18) It is l i t e r a r y s l a p s t i c k w i th the immediate e f f e c t being incredu lous l augh te r . In t h i s case , however, the laughter stems p a r t i a l l y from the f a c t that we r e a l i z e that a f r i g h t e n i n g l y t h i n l i n e is drawn here between the realm of the absurd and that of real i t y . F i e l d i n g makes fun of a l l the convent ions of h e r o i c t ragedy. His hero , Tom Thumb, i s more than m o r t a l ; he is possessed of a "mountainous s o u l . " He is a f e r o c i o u s w a r r i o r whose name is used by the g ian t nurses to f r i g h t e n c h i l d r e n — but o f course i t is imposs ib le to r e c o n c i l e any of these h e r o i c a t t r i b u t e s w i th the p igmy-s ized Thumb. It is in the language i t s e l f that the bur lesque is most s k i l f u l l y hand led. The d ramat is t v u l g a r i z e s every noble sent iment he can p o s s i b l y lay h i s hands on w i th h i l a r i o u s r e s u l t s . S i m i l a r l y h i s cha rac te rs are possessed of a l l the wrong v i r t u e s . Queen D o l l a l l o l a is f a r removed from any con-cep t i on one might have of a t r a g i c he ro ine . When she weeps, tears gush down her " b l u b b e r ' d cheeks, / L i k e a swo l ' n g u t t e r " ( l X , 21), when she speaks, vu lga r sent iments issue f o r t h . She emerges as a c r u d e , o v e r - s e x e d , middle-aged female who wanders about the cour t in a s t a t e o f s e m i - i n -t o x i c a t i o n . Her predominant c h a r a c t e r i s t i c is her l u s t . She con-t i n u a l l y swoons over Tom Thumb, and she has on ly envy f o r Glumdalca, the c a p t i v e Queen of G i a n t s , who had to leave twenty husbands beh ind. D o l l a l l o l a ' s sent iments on t h i s l a s t occas ion are f a r from those ex-pected of a Queen — even one who t i p p l e s : Oh! happy s t a t e of g ian t i sm — where husbands L i k e mushrooms grow, w h i l s t hapless we are forced To be con ten t , nay, happy thought , w i th one. ( IX, 26, Ac t I I , i i i) When D o l l a l l o l a weighs her v i r t u e aga ins t Tom Thumb she f i n d s her v i r t u e the l i g h t e r o f the two. Knowing i t to be as imposs ib le f o r her to 1 ive wi thout her v i r t u e as wi thout Tom, she can on ly hope to be l e f t a widow. F i e l d i n g p laces her regal wishes in a harsher s e t t i n g when he compares her dilemma and proposed s o l u t i o n to that of a whore set loose to walk the s t r e e t s again a f t e r a sentence in B r i d e w e l l ! When the King f e e l s a sudden pa in w i t h i n h is b reas t in the presence of Glumdalca he does not know i f i t a r i s e s from love " o r on ly the wind-c h o l i c k . " Huncamunca, the p r i n c e s s loved by both Tom Thumb and G r i z z l is a s u i t a b l e o f f s p r i n g f o r such pa ren ts . A f t e r marry ing her "Thummy" she is eager to po in t out to G r i z z l e that " a maid, l i k e me, Heaven form'd at l e a s t f o r t w o " ( l X , 53 ) , and the emphasis we gather is on the " a t l e a s t . " F i e l d i n g ach ieves h i s s a t i r i c e f f e c t in a mu l t i t ude of ways. Fre quent ly he surrounds a noble sent iment w i th u t t e r nonsense and by con-t r a s t ach ieves the d e s i r e d e f f e c t of the r i d i c u l o u s . Another dev ice 24 he uses is to b u i l d to a s ta te of s u b l i m i t y and then add a f i n a l word or phrase that is enough to topp le the whole c o n s t r u c t i o n . P o s s i b l y the most success fu l dev ice F i e l d i n g employs is tha t of j u x t a p o s i n g the subl ime w i th the v u l g a r . He begins in e leva ted b e a u t i f u l language, s low ly i n f l a t i n g h i s image, and then descends w i th s t a r t l i n g abruptness to the common. An example w i l l best i l l u s t r a t e t h i s p o i n t ; Thumb; Whisper ye winds tha t Huncamunca's mine, Echoes repeat , that Huncamunca's mine! The dreadfu l bus iness of the war is o ' e r , And beauty, heavenly beauty! crowns my t o i l s ! I 've thrown the bloody garment now as ide And hymeneal sweets i n v i t e my b r i d e . So when some chimney-sweeper a l l the day Hath through dark paths pursued the sooty way, At n i g h t , to wash h i s hands and face he f l l e s , And in h is t ' o t h e r s h i r t w i th h i s B r i ckdus ta l i e s . ( IX, 29, Act I, i i i ) The e f f e c t of the sudden s h i f t from the l o f t i n e s s of the f i r s t par t of the passage to the commonness of i t s l a t t e r par t is to shock the reader in to an awareness of the a b s u r d i t y o f the s i t u a t i o n . The imagery is as incongruous as the noble sent iments themselves. A f t e r the unfor tunate demise of Thumb the t ragedy draws to a qu ick and bloody c l o s e . In h i s g r i e f over the l oss of h i s mighty w a r r i o r the k ing decrees that they " L e t lawyers , pa rsons , and p h y s i c i a n s l o o s e , / To rob, impose on , and to k i l l the wo r l d " ( IX, 70') • This is the worst imaginable end, i t is i m p l i e d , to the worst imaginable d i s a s t e r . There f o l l ows a t r iumphant ly absurd c l imax in which everyone is k i l l e d , p ro -v i d i n g the audience w i th a b lood-bath s u p e r i o r to that found in the g o r i e s t of h e r o i c t r a g e d i e s . 25 In the bur lesque there would appear to be two b a s i c l e v e l s to the s a t i r e . The most obvious l eve l is the bur lesque of h e r o i c t ragedy i t s e l f . F i e l d i n g r i d i c u l e s in a d e l i g h t f u l l y humorous manner a l l the convent ions that were being abused by the t raged ians of h i s e r a . The ob jec t o f h i s s a t i r e is p r i m a r i l y h e r o i c t ragedy as i t was being per -formed in London at that t ime, and the p lay bur lesques d i r e c t l y more than f o r t y he ro i c and p s e u d o - c l a s s i c t r a g e d i e s . His s a t i r i c e f f e c t is ach ieved by g i v i n g mock h e r o i c treatment to the most unhero ic course of events imaginable . He d i s t o r t s he ro i c sent iment , jux taposes high f l ow ing language w i th the vu lga r and obscene, and incongruously l i n k s images drawn from oppos i te p o l e s , a l l w i th wonderful d e x t e r i t y . The more se r i ous i m p l i c a t i o n s beneath h is ban te r ing tone prov ide a second l eve l to the s a t i r e . The " t r agedy " represents a grave comment on F i e l d i n g ' s s o c i e t y and on the f r a i l t i e s of i t s members. P r i d e , f o o l i s h i d o l i z a t i o n , f a l s e v i r t u e , a l l emerge as ta rge ts in what is e s s e n t i a l l y an a t t ack on the t as tes o f the age. In 1736 F i e l d i n g had formed "The Great Mogul 's Company of Comedians" and had taken the L i t t l e Theater in the Haymarket. In Pasqu i n, A Dramat i ck Sat i re On the Times, h i s f i r s t p lay produced t h e r e , he returned to the p o l i t i c a l s a t i r e he had w r i t t e n in Don Quixote in  England (1733). The e l e c t i o n scenes in the e a r l i e r p lay had met w i th such applause that F i e l d i n g no doubt f e l t a whole new f i e l d f o r the B. M. Jones , Henry F i e l d i n g , N o v e l i s t and Mag is t ra te (London, 1933), p. 51. 26 exercise of his powers of satire had opened up — and it had. He pro-, ceeded to make use of the L i t t le Theater as a platform for the prose-cution of a vigorous pol i t ica l campaign against the ministry. Both Pasqu in and The Hi storical ReqisterQ 737) contain nea r1y as much soc ia l , l i terary and theatrical satire as they do pol i t ica l sat ire. Again the beau monde, the London society with a l l its fo l l i es and vices, is hit by the author. The sheer f r i vo l i t y and inanity of the l i f e of a London beau, as well as French fashions and the whole art of polite conversation, are handled with contempt. Such common practices as keeping and gaming — or rather the commonness of such practices — are s imi lar i ly held up to r id icule . The fervor for Italian opera and part icularly the town's idolization of F a r i n e l l i , a celebrated Italian male soprano, receives special attention from Fielding. Fielding is at his fu l l strength as a dramatist in Pasqu in. His range is greater than ever before and with the additional attraction of pol i t ica l satire the play takes on a sparkle and vivacity that ranks it high among his dramatic productions. The author again uses the device of the piay-within-the-play, this time revolving the action around the rehearsal of two plays; the f i rs t a comedy called "The Elect ion," and the second a tragedy called "The Life and Death of Common Sense." As their t i t l es would indicate they are essential ly pol i t ica l and l i terary satires at their core, with a generous helping of social satire spread over the whole as a kind of frost ing. "The Election" consists of a series of humorous scenes in which 27 the f l a g r a n t and open b r i be ry at e l e c t i o n s and the shameless immoral i ty of f ash i onab le l i f e are s a t i r i z e d . B r ibe ry is the major theme of the comedy. The scenes exposing the co r rup t i on that r i d d l e d e l e c t i o n s were so comple te ly success fu l the Oppos i t i on suggested that the p lay should be acted in every borough before the e l e c t i o n s to warn the people aga ins t the b r i be r y that took p l a c e . 7 These scenes are comical and l i v e l y . The s a t i r e is never very s u b t l e , but the comedy would not succeed i f i t were. However, even in these scenes in which F i e l d i n g was r i d i -c u l i n g the m i n i s t r y , he does not pass up an oppor tun i t y to j i b e at Col ley C ibber . In the scene wi th Lord P l a c e , Colonel Promise and severa l v o t e r s , Lord P lace promises to p rov ide f o r them a l l , e i t h e r in customs, e x c i s e or the c o u r t ; 2 vo te r . My L o r d , I should l i k e a p lace at cour t too , I don ' t much care what i t i s , p rov ided I wear f i n e c l o thes and have something to do in the k i t chen or the c e l l a r , I own I should l i k e t h e - . c e l l a r , f o r I am a d e v i l i s h l ove r of sack . ^ P l a c e . Sack, say y o u 7 Odso, you s h a l l be p o e t - l a u r e a t e . 2 v o t e r . Poe t ! no, my L o r d , I am no poe t , I c a n ' t make v e r s e s . P l a c e . No matter fo r t h a t , y o u ' l l be ab le to make odes. 2 v o t e r . Odes, my l o r d ! what are t h o s e 7 P l a c e . F a i t h , s i r , I c a n ' t t e l l what they a r e , but I know you may be q u a l i f i e d f o r the p lace wi thout being 3 P ° e t ' (X I , 184, Act I I , ,) B r ibe ry and c o r r u p t i o n are the order of the day. F i e l d i n g was having I b i d . , p. 51. fun w i th h is sub jec t ma t te r , but the laughter does not e rase the sober ing i m p l i c a t i o n s of many of the scenes. The immoral i ty of f ash ionab le s o c i e t y and the t as tes of the t h e a t e r - g o i n g wor ld are prime ta rge ts f o r the s a t i r i s t . Mrs. Mayoress 's d e s i r e to have her husband again in o f f i c e i s based s o l e l y on her wish g to get out of the country and back to the p leasures of London. She is seconded in t h i s by her daughter who man i fes ts a l l the popu lar t as tes o f the day. Miss Mayoress expresses her reasons f o r want ing to re turn to the c i t y ; " then we s h a l l see F a r i b e l l y , the s t range man-woman that they say is w i th c h i l d , and the f i n e p i c t u r e s o f M e r l i n ' s cave a t the p l a y - h o u s e s , and the rope-dancing and the tumbl i n g " ( X I , 179, Ac t I I , i) . There is a great deal of rancor d i sp l ayed in F i e l d i n g ' s a t t a c k on F a r i n e l l i and what he represen ted . Near ly ten years l a t e r in the True  P a t r i o t we f i n d Mr. Adams remark ing; Th is ope ra , I am informed, is a d i v e r s i o n in which a p rod ig ious sum of money, more than is to be c o l l e c t e d out of twenty p a r i s h e s , is l a v i s h e d away on f o re i gn eunuchs and p a p i s t s , very scan -dalous to be su f fe red at any t ime, e s p e c i a l l y at a season when both war and famine hang over our heads.9 There would seem to be two fo rces ope ra t i ng behind F i e l d i n g ' s d i s l i k e . In h i s novels F i e l d i n g cont inues to a s s o c i a t e good w i th country l i f e and e v i l w i th the c i t i e s , e s p e c i a l l y London. His heroes , Joseph and Fanny and Tom and Soph ia , f o r example, are rewarded by a l i f e o f ease and contentment in the count ry . 9 No. 13, Tuesday, J a n . 28, 1746. 29 f i r s t are the reasons ev iden t in Mr. Adam's comments, which are l i n k e d w i th the whole ques t ion o f a r t and c u l t u r e , but second l y , there is a n a t u r a l , hea l thy mascu l ine d i s t a s t e f o r t h i s type of fawning,ef fern inate pe rson , a d i s t a s t e that makes i t s e l f obvious in a l l h i s w r i t i n g s . The author r i d i c u l e s the s o c i a l f o l l i e s of h i s s o c i e t y in good-natured f a s h i o n . Lord P lace comments on Miss Mayoress 's remarkable breed ing — r e f l e c t e d in her good t as te — and t e l l s her she w i l l no doubt be much admired in the beau monde and soon taken in to keeping by some man of q u a l i t y . For , he says , every one now keeps, and is kep t , there are no such t h i ng as marr iages now-a-days, un less merely S m i t h f i e l d c o n t r a c t s , and that f o r the support of f a m i l i e s , but then the husband and w i fe both take in to keeping w i t h i n a f o r t n i g h t . (X I , 180, Act I I , i) We d i scove r that there are severa l " r e p u t a b l e " t rades which people of f ash ion may p r a c t i s e , "such as gaming, i n t r i g u i n g , vo t i ng and running in d e b t , " and a l l w i thout fea r of punishment. Mrs. Mayoress c a r e f u l l y e x p l a i n s to her q u e s t i o n i n g daughter that "peop le are punished fo r do ing naughty t h i n g s , but people of q u a l i t y are never pun ished, t he re -fo re they never do any naughty t h i n g s " (Act I I , i ) . The second par t of the p l a y , F u s t i a n ' s t ragedy , "The L i f e and Death of Common Sense , " has as i t s main theme a consp i racy aga ins t Common Sense. The v i l l a i n s in t h i s i n s u r r e c t i o n are the rep resen ta t i ves of r e l i g i o n and the learned p ro fess i ons of law and med ic ine . These c o n s p i r a t o r s p r e f e r Queen Ignorance to Queen Common Sense as t h e i r s o v e r e i g n . F i e l d i n g uses t h i s a l l e g o r y to s a t i r i z e the i no rd ina te 30 c la ims set up by the chu rch , to expose the i n e q u a l i t i e s and hardsh ips that the e x i s t i n g laws countenanced,and to r i d i c u l e the quackery p r a c t i s e d in the name of medical s c i e n c e . Th is t ragedy is more s t a r k l y a l l e g o r i c a l than the puppet-show in The A u t h o r ' s Farce , i t is l ess p a r t i c u l a r i z e d and more b i t t e r . The invas ion of the realm of Common Sense by Ignorance is aga in b a s i c a l l y the same theme as is found in the Dunciad. It a l s o revea ls in e x p l i c i t terms the problem wi th which F i e l d i n g as a p r o f e s s i o n a l man of the thea te r was always con f ron ted ; the c o n f l i c t i n g demands of sound c r i t i c a l sense and popular t a s t e . F i e l d i n g chose to s a t i r i z e the t as tes of h i s s o c i e t y ra ther than con -form to them. W r i t i n g a t a t ime "when nonsense, d u l n e s s , lewdness, and a l l manner of profaneness and immora l i t y " were " d a i l y p r a c t i s e d on the s t a g e " ( X I , 201, Act I I I , i ) , the author attempted to hold up to r i d i c u l e the f ash ionab le enter ta inments o f h i s day by s a t i r i z i n g them. In the t ragedy Common Sense is ousted by Ignorance. She i n t e r p r e t s her f a l l in terms tha t a n t i c i p a t e the fou r th book of Pope 's Dune i a d ; Hencefor th a l l th ings s h a l l t opsy - tu rvy t u r n , Phys i ck s h a l l k i l l , and Law ens lave the w o r l d ; C i t s s h a l l turn beaus, and t a s t e I t a l i a n songs Whi le c o u r t i e r s are s t o c k - j o b b i n g in the c i t y . P l a c e s , r e q u i r i n g l e a r n i n g and great p a r t s , Hencefor th s h a l l a l l be hus t led in a ha t , And drawn by men d e f i c i e n t in them both . (X I , 224, Act V, i) The tone is l i g h t e r , the language rougher, but the i m p l i c a t i o n s are the same as those of the Dune i a d , though a d m i t t e d l y , Pope c rea tes more of a f e e l i n g o f hor ror a t the prospect o f the re ign of Dulness than does F i e l d i n g . Much of the s a t i r e of Pasqu i n is d i r e c t e d at the t h e a t e r . The r i d i c u l o u s p l o t s , the s i l l y mis takes that occur in the rehea rsa l s — such as Queen Common Sense appear ing as her ghost before k i l l i n g h e r s e l f - - the constant hagg l ing of T rapw i t , Fus t ian and Sneerwel1, these are a l l par t of the a u t h o r ' s humorous a t t a c k on the p r a c t i c e s of the s tage . The mock he ro i cs of the tragedy accompanied by the comments of F u s t i a n , the au tho r , bur lesque the a b s u r d i t i e s o f he ro i c p lays in the same manner and fo r the same reasons as Tom Thumb. The a t t a c k on pantomine, I t a l i a n ope ra , d o c t o r s , lawyers , Grub S t r e e t , and even the Royal S o c i e t y , reveal the a u t h o r ' s n e v e r - f a i l i n g i n t e r e s t in the s o c i e t y around him. His p o l i t i c a l s a t i r e , which blossomed r e a l l y f o r the f i r s t t ime in t h i s p l a y , was more than j u s t a means f o r drawing a f u l l house. F i e l d i n g showed a d i s t a s t e f o r f a l s e p r i de and a f f e c t a t i o n in a l l t h e i r forms and he cons idered i t even more damnable when such hypocr i sy mani fes ted i t s e l f in s o - c a l l e d " g r e a t men. Pasqu i n was the beginn ing of the end f o r F i e l d i n g as a d rama t i s t . The Walpole a d m i n i s t r a t i o n regarded him as the c h i e f s a t i r i s t f o r the Oppos i t i on and was understandably d i s tu rbed by h is a t t a c k s . Prev ious attempts to l i c e n s e the a c t i n g of p lays had f a i l e d , however, l eav ing the p laywr igh t s w i th a f a l s e sense of s e c u r i t y , ' ^ F i e l d i n g was at the In 1733 more than one unsuccess fu l attempt had been made to t e s t the l e g a l i t y o f per forming p lays wi thout a l i c e n s e . In the same year a b i l l to regu la te playhouses was introduced in the House of Commons and de fea ted . In 1735 . S i r John Barnard introduced a s i m i l a r b i l l wh ich , wh i l e supported by Wa lpo le , was ignored. 32 t ime the lead ing f i g u r e o f the London s tage , a man at the peak o f h i s d ramat ic c a r e e r . His d e d i c a t i o n to the publ i c in The H i s t o r i c a l Reg i s te r  For the Year 1736 conta ined proposa ls f o r e n l a r g i n g the L i t t l e Thea te r , r edeco ra t i ng i t and b r i n g i n g in a new, be t t e r company of a c t o r s . The same d e d i c a t i o n conta ined a l s o an i r o n i c foreshadowing of the f a t e that was soon to b e f a l l him; If nature hath g iven me any t a l e n t s at r i d i c u l i n g v i c e and imposture, I s h a l l not be i n d o l e n t , nor a f r a i d of e x e r t i n g them, wh i l e the l i b e r t y of the press and stage s u b s i s t s , that i s to say , wh i l e we have any l i b e r t y l e f t among us . (X I , 237) This l i b e r t y was taken away. On May 20, 1737, Walpole int roduced a b i l l to regu1 a te pi ayhouses, us ing a pi ay cal 1 ed The Golden Rump (author unknown), which had come in to h is hands through one G i f f a r d , p r o p r i e t o r of the L i n c o l n ' s Inn F i e l d s Thea t re , as an example of the p o t e n t i a l t h rea t o f un l i censed p lays to the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n . The b i l l went through a l l i t s stages in l ess than three weeks and became law on June 21st. As a r e s u l t a l l t hea te rs except those at Covent Garden and Drury Lane were c losed and F i e l d i n g ' s dramat ic career was over . The Mi seel 1 an i es F i e l d i n g ' s f i r s t s i g n i f i c a n t venture in prose was The Champ ion . Th is newspaper prov ided him w i th more freedom fo r h i s s a t i r i c a t t acks than had the s t r i c t e r con f ines of the drama. F i e l d i n g adopted the persona of Capta in Hercules V inegar — in f a c t he created a whole f am i l y of V inegars j u s t as S tee le had created the B i c k e r s t a f f s in The T a t l e r — and in t h i s way he was ab le to cont inue h is a t t a c k on Wa lpo le , the C i b b e r s , I t a l i a n Opera, cu r ren t t as tes and t rends of f ash ionab le s o c i e t y , and a l l the quacks and mountebanks he had r i d i c u l e d in h i s p l a y s . The  Champ ion prov ided the author w i th a pe r f ec t means fo r d e a l i n g wi th s o c i e t y ' s f o l l i e s and w i th both the v i r t u e s and v i c e s inherent in human na tu re . It s t a r t e d F i e l d i n g w r i t i n g on themes that were to form a b a s i c par t of h i s f i c t i o n f o r the res t of h i s c a r e e r . Issues on ly touched in h i s f a r ces and bur lesques became t o p i c s fo r the e s s a y i s t . C h a r i t y , pove r t y , goodness as opposed to g rea tness , became subj*ects f o r moral essays that began to appear w i th h i s p o l i t i c a l a l l e g o r i e s and h is con-34 t inued spor t w i th the Cibbers o f h i s s o c i e t y . Jus t as h i s dramat ic ca reer had prov ided him w i th i nva luab le t r a i n i n g f o r the w r i t i n g of the n o v e l , so too these f i r s t ventures in prose prov ided the germs o f what were to develop in to b a s i c themes of h i s f i c t i o n . The Mi seel 1 an i e s , pub l i shed in three volumes in 1743, can be r e -garded as a major landmark in F i e l d i n g ' s ca ree r . A l though they came out one year a f t e r the p u b l i c a t i o n of Joseph Andrews, a s i g n i f i c a n t p o r t i o n of t h e i r contents is assumed to have been composed a t an e a r l i e r da te . They can be seen as the product o f h i s t r a n s i t i o n a l pe r iod be-tween the ca reers of d ramat is t and n o v e l i s t . In the Miseel 1 an ies there is ample ev idence of F i e l d i n g the s a t i r i s t . It is in t h i s wonderful assortment o f poems, essays and longer n a r r a t i v e s that we see a s i de of F i e l d i n g not always recogn izab le in h i s comic works. This F i e l d i n g i s cas t in the mold o f Luc ian and Swi f t and he o f ten w r i t e s s a t i r e pu re l y f o r s a t i r e ' s sake. He demands our admi ra t ion f o r the s k i l l w i th which he handles the dev ices of the s a t i r i s t ' s t r ade . Frequent ly he adopts a persona who is as gl ib and conv inc i ng as S w i f t ' s modest p r o j e c t o r , ^ s u s t a i n i n g h i s po i se in v i r -t u a l l y any l i t e r a r y s i t u a t i o n in which he cares to p lace h imse l f . In poetry F i e l d i n g experimented w i th epigrams and mock e p i t a p h s , w i th parody and bu r lesque , w i th the s a t i r i c e p i s t l e and the s a t i r i c a l l e g o r y , "A Modest P r o p o s a l , " The Prose Works of Jonathan S w i f t , ed . Temple Scot t (London, 1905), v o l . VI I . ' In t h i s proposal the p r o j e c t o r lays out a p lan f o r s o l v i n g I r e l a n d ' s problems that is r a t i o n a l , c o n v i n c i n g , and unbe l i evab l y h o r r i b l e . - C i t a t i o n s from Swi f t in my tex t are to the Temple Scot t e d i t i o n . 35 and he even attempted to w r i t e verse e s s a y s , mix ing s a t i r e and d i r e c t 2 statement in the manner o f Pope. In h i s prose he used e p i s t l e s , bur lesque c r i t i c i s m , d i a t r i b e s , dream v i s i o n s , mock encomia, e s s a y s , mock s c h o l a r s h i p , bur lesque h i s t o r y , and d ia logue to ach ieve h i s s a t i r i c e f f e c t . To i l l u s t r a t e the s k i l l w i th which F i e l d i n g i s capable of hand l ing s a t i r e I propose f i r s t to d i s c u s s two sho r te r p ieces from h is Mi seel -1 a n i e s ; "An Essay on Noth ing" and "Some PAPERS Proper to be Read Before the R 1 S o c i e t y . " Here the author r i d i c u l e s h i s s a t i r i c t a rge t s in essays that are dec ided l y S w i f t i a n . F i e l d i n g ' s "Essay on Noth ing" is a d e l i g h t f u l l y executed p iece o f s a t i r i c w r i t i n g . Cast in the form of an encomium, the essay e u l o -g izes " n o t h i n g . " The sub jec t had been t rea ted b e f o r e , perhaps most notab ly by John Wi lmot, Ear l of Roches te r , in a poem e n t i t l e d Upon  Noth i n g , but F i e l d i n g g ives i t a new t w i s t . Adopt ing the persona of a p re ten t i ous l o g i c i a n , F i e l d i n g se ts out to prove in a l o g i c a l , w e l l -ordered argument that " n o t h i n g " not on ly e x i s t s , but that i t can be seen , t a s t e d , s m e l l e d , f e l t , and l oved , ha ted , or f e a r e d . Th is pa r -t i c u l a r form of s a t i r e was not new wi th F i e l d i n g , i t was in f a c t one w i th an anc ien t t r a d i t i o n behind i t . The encomium was o r i g i n a l l y an o r a t i o n in the e p i d e i c t i c mode which eu log i zed a person , p lace or t h i ng acco rd ing to a f a i r l y c o n s i s t e n t form wh i l e employing a convent iona l H. K. M i l l e r , Essays on F i e l d i n g ' s M i s c e l l a n i e s ( P r i n c e t o n , 1961), p. 273. set o f re levan t arguments. It was meant to be impress ive and o s t e n -t a t i o u s in i t s formal treatment of the s u b j e c t . The beauty of F i e l d i n g ' essay res ts in the manner in which i t adheres to a l l the demands of form wh i l e a t the same time r i d i i cu l ing the ar rogant nonsense that many contemporary authors were pass ing o f f as learned t r e a t i s e s . The a u t h o r ' s parody of the se r i ous encomium func t i ons on three d i s t i n c t l e v e l s . On the su r face there is the panegyr ic i t s e l f on the sub jec t of " n o t h i n g . " Th is is nea t l y presented in a forma 1 , e rud i te tone . The next l eve l i s the s a t i r e p roper , the impl ied meaning that is in every statement about " n o t h i n g " and which is d i r e c t l y a p p l i c a b l e to contemporary v a l u e s . Th is second l eve l fuses w i th the f i r s t in the mat ter o f form, f o r the framework (the r h e t o r i c a l dev ices proper to the se r i ous encomium) c o n t r i b u t e s to the s a t i r i c e f f e c t by v i r t u e o f the f a i t h f u l n e s s w i th which the s a t i r i s t f o l l ows the r u l e s . It is in r e c o g n i t i o n of the form and the subsequent awareness of what i s being done w i th i t that much of the p leasure to be de r i ved from the s a t i r e is found. The t h i r d l eve l can be seen when the author drops h i s i r o n i c pose and speaks d i r e c t l y to the aud ience. Th is i s something that Swi f t seldom, i f e v e r , does, f o r in Swi f t the na r ra to r wears the mask of the adversary p r a c t i c a l l y throughout. But i f one can agree w i th the sug-ges t ion that one of the great c o n t r i b u t i o n s F i e l d i n g made to the novel I b i d . , p. 302. This d i s c u s s i o n is based on d i v i s i o n s suggested by M i l l e r . 37 was the c o u p l i n g of the technique of the persona w i th that o f the s t r a i g h t - f o r w a r d na r ra to r and e x p o s i t o r , t e a c h i n g w r i t e r s o f E n g l i s h 5 f i c t i o n to assume and remove the mask a t w i l l , then I t h ink i t is reasonable to app ly the same argument to these sho r te r works. I see no reason fo r f e e l i n g that the a u t h o r ' s i n t r u s i o n d e t r a c t s from the s a t i r i c e f f e c t , r a t h e r , I would suggest , i t s t rengthens the po in t the s a t i r i s t is making. I w i l l t r y to i l l u s t r a t e t h i s by a c l o s e r exam-i n a t i o n o f the essay i t s e l f . In h i s i n t r o d u c t i o n to the paper the author s t a tes h is s u r p r i s e tha t so few w r i t e r s have endeavoured to e l abo ra te on t h i s p a r t i c u l a r sub jec t o f " n o t h i n g . " He w r i t e s ; But whatever the reason, c e r t a i n i t i s , that except a hardy w i t in the re ign of Char les II none ever hath dared to w r i t e on t h i s s u b j e c t ; I mean openly and avowedly, f o r i t must be con fessed , that most o f our modern au tho rs , however f o r e i g n the mat ter which they endeavour to t r e a t may seem at t h e i r f i r s t s e t t i n g ou t , they gene ra l l y b r i ng the work to t h i s in the end. (XIV, 309) In t h i s passage can be found the three l e v e l s r e fe r red to above. There is the p o l i t e , formal i n t r o d u c t i o n demanded of the form. The type of person w r i t i n g the t r e a t i s e is a l s o revea led . He is a man puf fed w i th h i s own importance and almost condescending w i th h i s "none hath ever dared to w r i t e on t h i s s u b j e c t . " I t h ink we have to see the persona E leanor N. Hutchens, Irony in Tom Jones ( U n i v e r s i t y of Alabama P r e s s , 1965), p. 1^ 9. 38 as being in many respects s i m i l a r to the hack w r i t e r of A Tale of a Tub. The l a t t e r is a product o f Grub S t r e e t , a man w i l l i n g to turn h i s pen to a b s o l u t e l y any th ing — even no th ing . To the s a t i r i s t t h i s man represents a d e f i n i t e th rea t to a s o c i e t y that is s t r i v i n g to ma in ta in c e r t a i n s tandards in i t s l i t e r a t u r e . In F i e l d i n g , as in Swi f t and Pope, we f i n d moral d e c l i n e equated w i th c u l t u r a l d e c l i n e w i th the hack w r i t e r s r i d i n g the c r e s t of the wave of degeneracy. S w i f t ' s hack w r i t e r i s a no tab le example o f someone who has w r i t t e n on " n o t h i n g , " f o r he ends up w r i t i n g on t h i s sub jec t at the conc lus i on of the T a l e . He is a l s o q u i t e e x p l i c i t about h i s reasons f o r doing so ; I am now t r y i n g an experiment very f requent among modern au tho rs , which i s to w r i t e upon no th ing , when the sub jec t is u t t e r l y exhausted, to l e t the pen s t i l l move on , by some c a l l e d the ghost o f w i t , d e l i g h t i n g to walk a f t e r the death of i t s body. (Sw i f t , I, 142) The na r ra to r o f The Ta le of a Tub is a u n i f y i n g f a c t o r in that he represents a ta rge t o f much of the s a t i r e . The whole insane Tubbian wor ld man i fes ts i t s e l f in t h i s product o f Grub S t r e e t . It i s a mad wor ld o f d i s t o r t e d v a l u e s , f i l l e d w i th mountebanks and f o o l s a l l a c t i n g t h e i r pa r ts on t h e i r i t i n e r a n t s t ages . F i e l d i n g ' s persona represents an e q u a l l y v i l l a i n o u s th rea t to s o c i e t y . L i ke the author of the Ta1e he too is the ob jec t o f the a t t a c k and a u n i f y i n g fea tu re o f the s a t i r e . He is the o s t e n t a t i o u s , a r rogant pedant p re tend ing to great wisdom and knowledge. At t imes the author drops h is i r o n i c pose and speaks d i r e c t l y to the aud ience. At such po in t s i t is not the hack speaking any l onger , but F i e l d i n g h imse l f d i r e c t i n g a s a t i r i c barb a t h i s contemporar ies . These lapses in to d i r e c t comment never s t r i k e the reader as being out o f p l ace in the s a t i r e . It is d i f f i c u l t to d i s c e r n the s h i f t in tone on many occas ions and i t is t h i s very ambigui ty that g ives zes t to the whole game of t r y i n g to dec ide when F i e l d i n g is in earnes t or when he is mocking, when i t i s the persona speaking and when the author h imse l f . He has such a d e l i g h t f u l sense of the l ud i c rous tha t the reader is h e s i t a n t to accept at face va lue any th ing he w r i t e s in the s a t i r i c ve in F i e l d i n g f r e q u e n t l y swi tches t a rge t s from h i s persona to o thers among h is contemporar ies — so whenever i t s u i t s h i s purpose he drops the mask and p i c k s up another s a t i r i c d e v i c e , that of i r o n i c commentary This is a f ea tu re of F i e l d i n g ' s s a t i r e that is not emphasized enough. He wrote w i th a thorough grounding in the works of the great w r i t e r s . He knew the r u l e s , the forms and the convent ions and u t i l i z e d them fo r h i s own purposes. The author of the Essay proceeds to lay out h i s t r e a t i s e in a manner b e f i t t i n g a se r i ous encomium. In h i s f i r s t s e c t i o n , as proper in such a l o g i c a l p r e s e n t a t i o n , he d i scusses the " A n t i q u i t y o f No th ing" Th is i s very p l a i n l y to be d i scovered in the f i r s t pages, and sometimes books, of a l l general h i s t o r i a n s , and indeed, the study of t h i s important sub jec t f i l l s up the whole l i f e of an a n t i q u a r y , i t being always at the bottom of h i s i n q u i r y , and is commonly a t l a s t d i scovered by him w i th i n f i n i t e labour and p a i n s . (xiv, 310-311) With in the framework of h i s mock eulogy F i e l d i n g comments n e a t l y , 40 p o l i t e l y , and d e s t r u c t i v e l y on a number of i n t e l l e c t u a l abuses. F i e l d i n g shared w i th many w r i t e r s of the age a d i s t a s t e f o r the misuse of l e a r n i n g , p a r t i c u l a r l y when i t mani fes ted i t s e l f in p r e t e n s i o n . Many of h i s con-tempora r ies , a n t i q u a r i e s and h i s t o r i a n s among them, must have s t ruck him as being employed a t t u rn ing out sheer nonsense, was t ing va luab le e f f o r t in the p u r s u i t o f va in r e c o g n i t i o n . The second s e c t i o n , "Of the Nature of N o t h i n g , " f u r t h e r i l l u s -t r a t e s the l ea rned , o r d e r l y aspec ts of the t r e a t i s e . The na r ra to r o u t l i n e s in conv inc ing tones h is p lan of a t t a c k ; I s h a l1 . . . p r o c e e d to show, f i r s t , what no th ing i s , second ly , I s h a l l d i s c l o s e the va r ious k inds of no th ing , and, l a s t l y s h a l l prove i t s great d i g n i t y , and that i t is the end of e v e r y t h i n g . (XIV, 311) There could be no c l e a r e r statement of purpose f o r an admi t ted ly tenuous s u b j e c t . The na r ra to r is c o n f i d e n t . He p rov ides the reader w i th e l abo ra te comparisons that emphasize the po in t s he is making; For i n s t a n c e , when a b ladder is f u l l of w ind , i t i s f u l l of something, but when that is l e t ou t , we a p t l y say , there is noth ing in i t . The same may be as j u s t l y asse r ted of a man as o f a b ladder . However we l l he may be bedaubed w i th l a c e , or w i th t i t l e , yet i f he have not something in him, we may p r e d i c t the same of him as of an empty b ladder . (XIV, 312) Here again F i e l d i n g g l i d e s smoothly from one s a t i r i c ta rge t to another . There is f i r s t the s a t i r e aimed a t the persona. This is inherent in the form and the language which is mechan i ca l , p re ten t i ous r h e t o r i c . Express ions l i k e "we a p t l y say " g i ve the paper the formal a i r of a 41 learned document wh i le at the same time th ings are exp la ined in the s i m p l e s t , commonest terms. F i e l d i n g mixes l o f t y purpose w i th com-p l e t e l y incongruous imagery in o rder to emphasize the r i d i c u l o u s . We have a d i r e c t comment from F i e l d i n g h imse l f as we l l i f a man has noth ing in him, regard less of h i s f i n e r y and h i s t i t l e s , he is the same as an empty b ladder . The t h i r d and f i n a l s e c t i o n , "Of the D ign i t y o f No th ing , and an Endeavour to Prove that i t is the End as we l l as the Beginning of a l l T h i n g s , " represents the brunt of F i e l d i n g ' s s a t i r i c a t t a c k . It is here we f i n d expressed most c l e a r l y h i s d i s t a s t e f o r a subserv ience to mere empty t i t l e s . He desp ised the idea of pay ing respect to a man not f o r what he is but f o r who he is — fo r q u a l i t i e s a s s o c i a t e d w i th h i s t i t l e , not f o r any that he may in f a c t possess . F i e l d i n g uses the f o l l o w i n g s y l l o g i s m to prove the e x i s t e n c e of the d i g n i t y of no th i ng ; The respect pa id to men on account of t h e i r t i t l e s is pa id at l eas t to the supposal of t h e i r supe r i o r v i r t u e s and a b i l i t i e s , or i t is pa id to no th ing . But when a man is a no to r ious knave or f o o l , i t is imposs ib le there should be any such supposa l . The c o n c l u s i o n is apparent . (XIV, 316) Th is i s the same type of chop l o g i c that S w i f t ' s modest p r o j e c t o r uses . Here, as the w r i t e r proceeds to prove the d i g n i t y of " n o t h i n g , " not on ly the persona but every h y p o c r i t e , a l l those who pretend to something they are no t , come under devas ta t i ng a t t a c k . The persona con t i nues ; Now that no man is ashamed of e i t h e r paying or r e c e i v i n g t h i s respect I wonder no t , s i nce the great importance of noth ing seems, I t h i n k , to be p r e t t y apparent ; but that they should kl deny the De i ty worsh ipped, and endeavour to represent noth ing as something, is more worthy reprehens ion . (XIV, 316) The mask of the persona is dangl ing around the a u t h o r ' s neck a t t h i s p o i n t . This is F i e l d i n g g i v i n g vent to h i s f e e l i n g s concern ing the c o r r u p t i o n , d e c e i t , " v u l g a r worship and a d u l a t i o n " that goes on in the cour ts and c i t i e s . He almost abandons h is t r e a t i s e in these passages. He revea ls h i s concern w i th the "g rea t man" of s o c i e t y ; The most a s t o n i s h i n g ins tance of t h i s r espec t , so f r e q u e n t l y pa id to no th i ng , i s when i t is pa id ( i f I may so express my-s e l f ) to something l ess than no th ing , when the person who rece ives i t is not on ly vo id of the q u a l i t y f o r which he is respec ted , but is in r e a l i t y n o t o r i o u s l y g u i l t y of the v i c e s d i r e c t l y oppos i t e to the v i r t u e s whose applause he r e c e i v e s . Th is i s , indeed, the h ighest degree of no th ing , or ( i f I may be a l lowed the word) , the no th inges t of a l l no th ings . (XIV, 316) F i e l d i n g is p r o t e s t i n g a s o c i e t y in which " g r a v i t y , c a n t i n g , b l u s t e r i n g , o s t e n t a t i o n , pomp, and such l i k e , " are c o n t i n u a l l y mistaken fo r t rue v i r t u e s such as "wisdom, p i e t y , magnanimity, c h a r i t y , and t rue g rea t -n e s s . " It is a wor ld in which the former , the p re tende rs , are given a l l the honour and reverence due the l a t t e r . The ending of t h i s mock encomium prov ides the harshest note o f a l l . In such a s o c i e t y there is no reward, even fo r the v i r t u o u s . Good w i l l cont inue to lose ou t , e v i l to p rosper . The v i r t u o u s , w i s e , and l ea rned , may then be unconcerned at a l l the charges of m i n i s t e r i e s and of government, s i nce they may be we l l s a t i s f i e d , that wh i l e m i n i s t e r s of s t a t e are rogues themselves, and have i n f e r i o r knav ish t o o l s to b r i be and re -ward, t rue v i r t u e , wisdom, l e a r n i n g , w i t , and i n t e g r i t y , w i l l most c e r t a i n l y b r ing t h e i r possessors - - no th i ng . (XIV, 319) 43 The f i n a l i r o n i c t w i s t e f f e c t i v e l y negates what immediately precedes • i_t F i e l d i n g b u i l d s towards a c l i m a x , in t roduces a ray of hope in the murky wor ld he has p o r t r a y e d , then o b l i t e r a t e s w i th that unexpected " n o t h i n g " which i s the reward of good as we l l as e v i l in t h i s s o c i e t y of f a l s e v a l u e s . It i s a s o c i e t y in which goodness is seldom rewarded but the greatness of a Jonathan Wi ld (or a Walpole) is revered . It is an age in which the co r rup t p rospe r , d e c e i t and fawning are the order of the day, and in which a learned t r e a t i s e can be presented on " n o t h i n g . " The s t r a i g h t - f a c e d s i n c e r i t y and u n c r i t i c a l na i ve te of F i e l d i n g ' s parody of the P h i l o s o p h i c a l T ransac t ions is remin iscent o f S w i f t ' s "Modest P r o p o s a l . " The paper is reasoned, academic, and ext remely l o g i c a l , the persona of the v i r t u o s o is mainta ined throughout . To tu rn to Swi f t f o r a moment, we see h is economic p r o j e c t o r as a man who views eve ry th ing in terms of money, one whose va lues a l l come equipped w i th p r i c e tags . Yet the b a s i c element of the s a t i r e is the compe l l i ng conc lus i on — how can you d isagree w i th a person whose s o l e d e s i r e is to bene f i t mankind by h i s p roposa l? The p r o j e c t o r se ts f o r t h h i s argument in s i n c e r e , pe rsuas ive tones. As to my own p a r t , having turned my thoughts f o r many years upon t h i s important s u b j e c t , and mature ly weighed the severa l schemes of o ther p r o j e c t o r s I have always found them g r o s s l y mistaken in t h e i r computat ion. It is t rue a c h i l d , j u s t dropped from i t s dam, may be supported by her m i l k f o r a s o l a r year w i th l i t t l e o ther nour ishment, at most not above two s h i l l i n g s , which the mother may c e r t a i n l y ge t , or the va lue in s c r a p s , by her lawfu l occupat ion of begg ing, and i t i s e x a c t l y a t one year o l d that I propose to p rov ide f o r them, in such a manner, a s , instead of being a charge upon t h e i r p a r e n t s , or the p a r i s h , or want ing food and raiment f o r the res t of t h e i r l i v e s , they s h a l l , on the c o n t r a r y , c o n t r i b u t e to the feed ing and p a r t l y to the c l o t h i n g of many thousands. (Sw i f t , VI I, 2 0 8 ) It is a c o m p e l l i n g , l o g i c a l argument developed step by step in c o l d , inhuman terms. Shock, h o r r o r , d i s b e l i e f mix w i th c r e d i b i l i t y to y i e l d a grotesque e f f e c t . It is the type of reason d i sp l ayed by h i s economic p r o j e c t o r that Swi f t is s a t i r i z i n g , the type of reason that can argue such an inhuman, h o r r i b l e ac t through to i t s c o n c l u s i o n s . F i e l d i n g uses much the same technique in h i s parody of the s c i e n t i f i c repo r t . His persona is the v i r t u o s o , the man of s c i e n c e , one who presents a paper on the E n g l i s h gu inea , or CHRYSIPUS, w i th a l l the s i n c e r i t y expected of the t rue s c i e n t i s t . As in the "Modest P r o -p o s a l " the argument is c o n v i n c i n g l y deve loped. F i e l d i n g i s c a r e f u l to f o l l o w the o rder of t o p i c s proper to a b i o l o g i c a l repo r t : he f i r s t g i ves a d iagram, then f o l l o w s the s i z e and spec ies of the CHRYSIPUS and i t s general h a b i t a t , he at tempts to c l a s s i f y i t and g ives an account o f i t s motion and methods of r ep roduc t i on , he conducts exper iments w i th i t and then a r r i v e s at conc lus ions concern ing i t s l i f e c y c l e and l oca l h a b i t a t . The s a t i r e de r i ves i t s form from the work pa rod ied , a s c i e n t i f i c repor t by Abraham Trembley, a d i s t i n g u i s h e d Swiss n a t u r a l i s t and Fe l low of the Royal S o c i e t y . Trembley 's paper had been con t r i bu ted in November, 1 7 ^ 2 , to the P h i l o s o p h i c a l Transact ion of the Royal S o c i e t y . It dea l t w i th exper iments in the regenera t ion of f r esh water polyps and c rea ted a sensa t i on in the s c i e n t i f i c w o r l d . Jus t how much F i e l d i n g knew o r cared about sc ience is unknown, but from h is remarks in h i s w r i t i n g s we assume he shared S w i f t ' s view of the v i r t u o s o ' s a c t i v i t i e s -~ a 45 waste of the i n t e l l e c t on t r i v i a l t h i n g s . Trembley 's paper prov ided F i e l d i n g w i th a p e r f e c t means of a t t a c k i n g in a j e s t i n g fash ion the Royal Soc ie ty wh i l e at the same time making a se r i ous comment on misers and a v a r i c e and the co r rup t i on that seems to a s s o c i a t e i t s e l f w i th excess wea l t h . Here as in the "Essay on Noth ing" where the panegyr i c on " n o t h i n g " was enjoyed f o r i t s own sake , the f i r s t response is the p leasure de-r i ved from the i n c o n g r u i t i e s o f the s i n c e r e , s c i e n t i f i c account o f the CHRYSIPUS. The second l eve l is the impl ied s a t i r e , f o r the parody p rov ides the means by which to de r ide much l a r g e r f o l l i e s . The humor so e s s e n t i a l to t h i s type of s a t i r e emerges in the tone of the v i r t u o s o ' s repo r t . It is w i th a c r e d u l i t y born out of f a s c i n a t i o n w i th the mys te r ies of sc ience that the na r ra to r repor ts many of h i s f i n d i n g s , never doubt ing f o r a moment that h i s readers w i l l share h i s amazement at the marvels u n v e i l e d . He is c a r e f u l to ana lyze s i m i l a r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the Polypus and CHRYSIPUS and in so do ing he uncovers some remarkable d i f f e r e n c e s ; i t (the CHRYSIPUS) d i f f e r s from the Polypus in the consequence, f o r ins tead of making the INSECT i t s p rey , i t becomes i t s e l f a prey to i t , and ins tead of conveying an insect tw ice as l a rge as i t s own mouth in to i t , in i m i t a t i o n of the Po l ypus , the poor CHRYSIPUS is i t s e l f conveyed in to the LOCULUS or pouch of an INSECT a thousand t imes as la rge as i t s e l f . (XV, 67) W. L. C ross , The H is to ry o f Henry F i e l d i n g (New Haven, 1918), I, 391. 4 6 The s c i e n t i s t d i s p l a v s complete i n d i f f e r e n c e to the " i n s e c t " that depos i t s the "poor CHRYSIPUS" in i t s pouch. Much of the s a t i r i c e f f e c t de r i ves from t h i s combinat ion of man-as - insec t image and the very d i s -in te res tedness of the speaker . It is a l l r i gh t fo r the n a r r a t o r to speak of man as a bug, but not f o r him to f a i l to show s u i t a b l e re -v u l s i o n or f e a r . It is the i n d i f f e r e n c e that h u r t s . Much of the a t t ack is d i r e c t e d at F i e l d i n g ' s o ld enemy, Pe te r W a l t e r , who is d i s g u i s e d as Pet rus Gua l te rus . Th is famous usurer^ becomes the m i s e r l y Peter Pounce in Joseph Andrews. Making him the v i r t u o s o enabled the author to k i l l two b i r ds w i th one s tone ; he could have h i s fun w i th the Royal Soc ie ty and at the same time conduct a sharp ly s a t i r i c a t t a c k on a v a r i c e and m i s e r s . Gua l te rus is pe r f ec t in h i s ro le of na ive reco rde r , he t e l l s us ; A CHRYSIPUS by the s imple con tac t of my own f i n g e r , has so c l e a r l y a t tached i t s e l f to my hand, that by the j o i n t and i n d e f a t i g a b l e labour of severa l of my f r i e n d s , i t cou ld by no means be severed , or made to q u i t i t s ho l d . (XV, 68) We again rece ive a double image. One is that of Gua l te rus the learned s c i e n t i s t , amazed at the remarkable q u a l i t i e s of t h i s ob jec t he i s s t u d y i n g , the o ther is Pe te r Wa l t e r , a desp i cab le m i s e r , a man from whom i t is imposs ib le , even fo r f r i e n d s , to e x t r a c t a s i n g l e gu inea. It Peter Wal ter is a l s o mentioned f r equen t l y in Pope 's v e r s e ; Mora 1  Essay I I I , 1 ine 123, Sat i re I I , i i , 1 ine 166, Dialogue I I of Ep i loque  to the S a t i r e s , 1 ine 58. i s the l a t t e r image that arouses our contempt. It is i n e v i t a b l e in such a thorough experiment that the ques t ion of reproduc t ion should a r i s e . The ingenuousness of the man's repor t on t h i s a s p e c t , the a i r of innocence w i th which i t is d e l i v e r e d , helps c loak a deeper, darker in ten t in the humorous. The learned Pet rus t e l l us tha t he "never observed any t h i ng l i k e the common animal c o p u l a t i o n " among the CHRYSIPI. His f i r s t at tempts at breeding them f a i l e d because he used on ly two sub jec ts and these would not produce a complete CHRYSIPUS. But , undaunted, he cont inued to exper iment ; Upon t h i s , I t r i e d a hundred of them toge ther , by whose marve l -ous union (whether i t be, tha t they mix t o t a l , l i k e those heavenly s p i r i t s mentioned by M i l t o n , or by any other process not yet revealed to human wi t ) they were found in the y e a r ' s end to produce t h r e e , f o u r , and sometimes f i v e complete CHRYSIPI. (XV, 68) It is a c h i l d - l i k e f a s c i n a t i o n that the s c i e n t i s t d i s p l a y s as he h i n t s a t the many wonderful mys te r ies of na tu re . The ques t ion o f inces t preoccupied the learned man fo r a w h i l e , but f o r t u n a t e l y , he t e l l s us , not one of h i s experiments y i e l d e d any t races of c o p u l a t i o n , incestuous or o the rw ise . The s i n c e r i t y of tone and the s t r i c t confinement to proper form a i d in compounding the u t t e r a b s u r d i t y of the whole repo r t . Coupl ing a l o g i c a l , s t r a i g h t - f o r w a r d p resen ta t i on w i th preposterous sub jec t matter r e s u l t s in the r i d i c u l o u s This is what the s a t i r i s t s t r i v e s f o r . F i e l d i n g never loses s i g h t of the repor t he is pa rody ing , o f ten quot ing from the j ou rna l i t s e l f in o rder to ma in ta in a s c i e n t i f i c atmosphere. The language of G u a l t e r u s ' s paper is as learned as that of the o r i g i n a l . In d i s c u s s i n g the " d i v i s i o n and s u b d i v i s i o n of our CHRYSIPUS" he po in t s out that "we are fo rced to proceed in q u i t e a d i f f e r e n t manner, namely by the metabo l i c or mu ta t i ve , not by the s h y s t i c or d i v i s i v e . " The b i o l o g i c a l terminology serves two purposes, i t keeps the repor t on a s c i e n t i f i c p lane and i t aga in emphasizes the f a c t that the CHRYSIPUS is possessed of animal c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , not vege tab le . The CHRYSIPI do not m u l t i p l y by any th ing so s imple as eel 1 - d i v i s i o n — they are l i v i n g organisms and must be s tud ied as such. The i m p l i c a t i o n is t h a t , through our d e i f i c a t i o n o f ma te r i a l wea l t h , money has become more than a s imple convenience designed fo r man's use , i t has taken on q u a l i t i e s of a l i v i n g organism and p lays a major r o l e in the a f f a i r s o f men, a r o l e that is mys t i ca l and powerful and u n c o n t r o l l a b l e . The s a t i r e becomes more in tense as the essay draws to a c l o s e and the v i r t u o s o l i s t s some of the v i r t u e s of the CHRYSIPUS. Here, the author po in t s ou t , h i s sub jec t exceeds "not on ly the Po l ypus , of which not one s i n g l e v i r t u e is recorded, but a l l o ther animals and vegetab le wha tever . " He f i r s t mentions the amazing power the CHRYSIPUS possess . When a s i n g l e one is s tuck on to the f i n g e r i t w i l l "make a man t a l k f o r a f u l l hour, nay, w i l l make him say whatever the person who s t i c k s i t on d e s i r e s , and a g a i n , i f you d e s i r e s i l e n c e , i t w i l l as e f f e c t u a l l y stop the most loquac ious tongue. " It does upon occas ion happen that one, or two or three or even twenty guineas are not s u f f i c i e n t , but i f h3 you app ly the proper number they "seldom or never f a i l of s u c c e s s . " Every man has h i s p r i c e . F i e l d i n g c o n s t a n t l y a t tacked co r rup t i on and b r i b e r y , e s p e c i a l l y when i t went on in h igh p l a c e s , and beneath the su r face of t h i s s a t i r e you fee l the acute concern of the au thor . The s c i e n t i s t goes on to po in t out that t h i s f a n t a s t i c CHRYSIPUS has the "m i racu lous q u a l i t y of t u rn i ng b lack in to w h i t e , or whi te in to b l a c k , " and even of produc ing love in the f i n e s t and l o v e l i e s t women fo r the "most wor th less and u g l y , o ld and d e c r e p i t of our s e x . " A marr iage made fo r weal th and p o s i t i o n is always a prime ta rge t f o r F i e l d i n g . Th is p a r t i c u l a r sub jec t r ece i ves i t s most ex tens i ve treatment in h i s l a s t n o v e l , Ame1ia, but i t is a major theme in a l l h i s f i c t i o n . Thus w i th h i s s t r a i g h t - f a c e d s c i e n t i f i c account F i e l d i n g turns h i s immediate ma te r ia l to a much broader purpose, s a t i r i z i n g the Royal S o c i e t y , the p re ten t i ous v i r t u o s o , and in a much more se r i ous v e i n , m i s e r s , a v a r i c e and the co r rup t i on that weal th b r i n g s . Both the "Essay on Noth ing" and "Some PAPERS Proper to be Read before the R---1 S o c i e t y " represent par t of F i e l d i n g ' s general a t t ack on s o c i a l and i n t e l l e c t u a l abuses. They are l i g h t and c l e v e r in t h e i r p o l i s h e d p resen ta t i on and show why F i e l d i n g i s a p t l y c a l l e d an accom-p l i s h e d s a t i r i s t . In them he revea ls a s k i l l and con t ro l in hand l ing h i s form and sub jec t matter that does f u l l j u s t i c e to the repu ta t ion he es tab l ished as a s a t i r i s t wh i l e w r i t i n g drama. Jonathan Wi1d In 17^3, one year a f t e r the publ i c a t i o n of Joseph Andrews, the f i r s t e d i t i o n o f Henry F i e l d i n g ' s The L i fe of the Late Mr. Jonathan  Wi ld The Great appeared in volume III o f h i s M1 seel 1 an i e s . From the very beg inn ing i t was a problem c h i l d , f o r wh i l e i t had much in common w i th Joseph And rews, i t s tone was da rke r , the i rony more sus ta ined and the b i t t e r n e s s much more apparent . F i e l d i n g ' s endeavours as a d ramat i s t had resu l t ed in numerous f a r c e s and bur lesques wh ich , wh i le h a s t i l y turned ou t , enjoyed immense p o p u l a r i t y . They were f i l l e d w i th a t t acks on contemporary c o n d i t i o n s , on p o l i t i c s , and on p re tens ion in a l l i t s masks. S i m i l a r l y h i s w r i t i n g s f o r The Champion, p a r t i c u l a r l y h i s "Voyages of Mr. Job V i n e g a r , " which were e x p l i c i t l y i m i t a t i v e of G u l l i v e r ' s T rave ls b i t t e r l y condemned con-d i t i o n s in h i s s o c i e t y . However, i t is Jonathan Wi ld that represents F i e l d i n g ' s most success fu l attempt at a sus ta ined p iece of s a t i r i c 51 writing. In it he records the actions of a Great Man, Jonathan Wild, in such a manner as to expose the evil that threatens any society when "goodness" and "greatness" become completely divorced virtues, with a l l the power and material benefits fa l l ing into the greedy, clutching hands of those that possess the quality of "greatness." Fielding pays tribute to the conventional virtues that have always been admired by man — virtues such as honour and generosity and compassion — by presenting them as deplorable weaknesses while praising a l l their despicable opposites which are embodied in his hero, Jonathan Wild. It has been questioned by many c r i t i cs whether Jonathan Wild functions as a successful satire or whether it is not rather a tedious tirade that is neither a novel nor a formal satire but something in between the two. It is my intention to offer valid reasons for claiming that the work does constitute a successful satire and something which is unique among Fielding's works. Unlike Joseph And rews or Tom Jones, where the action rises above any sat i r ica l intent, to exist ultimately as something to be enjoyed in its own right, in Jonathan Wild the cu l -minating effect of the work is s a t i r i c a l . In his study The Ma k i n g of Jonathan Wild, W. R. Irwin g ives ex-tensive treatment to the historical background of Fielding's work, he presents a brief account of the history of the real Wild, and of the biographical material that would have been available to Fielding. Our author patterned his hero, or anti-hero, on the l i f e and actions of one Jonathan Wild who was f i r s t a thief , then a receiver of stolen goods, and f ina l ly the leader of a gang of criminals which operated 52 s u c c e s s f u l l y in London f o r severa l y e a r s . Wi ld was apprehended and hanged in 1725, and immediately numerous b iog raph ies were pub l i shed c e l e b r a t i n g h i s no to r ious c a r e e r . Remarkable as h i s c r i m i n a l a c h i e v e -ments may have been, s u r e l y the most amazing fea tu re about the man's l i f e was the p u b l i c sensa t ion h is hanging aroused. He was a l ready a legend — he became a symbol. Defoe 's L i fe and Act ions of Jonathan  Wi ld was the f i r s t good account o f W i l d ' s l i f e , and the one most used by F i e l d i n g f o r the h i s t o r i c a l background of h i s s a t i r e . Making Wi ld an a l l e g o r i c a l f i g u r e was by no means new w i th F i e l d i n g . Subsequent to Defoe 's b iography, uses of W i l d ' s name and repu ta t ion were f o r c h i e f l y p o l i t i c a l purposes w i th the r e s u l t that by 17^3 Wi ld had become a symbol of e v i l and c r u e l t y . ^ It was t h i s symbol that w r i t e r s f o r the Oppos i t i on e x p l o i t e d in t h e i r coun t l ess a t t acks on the Prime M i n i s t e r , Robert Walpo le . These a t t acks were by no means l i m i t e d to p o l i t i c a l pamphleteers and Grub St ree t hacks. The s a t i r i c a l p o s s i -b i l i t i e s o f the man's v i l l a i n o u s repu ta t ion were soon recogn i zed , and re ferences to Wi ld can be found in the works o f such prominent w r i t e r s of the age as S w i f t , Pope and Gay. John Gay 's Beggar 's Opera, f i r s t performed in 1728, employed a Newgate analogy to s a t i r i z e the Walpole a d m i n i s t r a t i o n in a p lay that has remarkable s i m i l a r i t i e s of p l o t and c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n to F i e l d i n g ' s work. Whi le many viewed the opera as a l i g h t h e a r t e d a t t a c k on the W R I rw in , The. Making of Jonathan Wjild. A Study in the L i t e r a r y Method of Henry F i e l d i n g (New York, 19^1) , p 11 mores of the p e r i o d , o t h e r s , l i k e Dean S w i f t , saw i t as " . . . a very 2 severe s a t i r e on the most p e r n i c i o u s v i l l a i n i e s o f mank ind. " It is d i f f i c u l t on the bas i s o f the Beqgar 's Opera i t s e l f to see Gay as a determined s a t i r i s t . There is s imply too much music and l augh te r . However, behind the su r face ga ie ty of the comic ope ra , behind a l l the bo i s te rous laughter and mus ic , there l u r ks a se r i ous comment on soc ie In h i s a r t i c l e " S a t i r e and S t . George, " P h i l i p Pinkus makes some re -marks about the nature of s a t i r e that help to remove the d i f f i c u l t y o f v iewing something e s s e n t i a l l y l i g h t , w i t t y , and even humorous, as being damningly s a t i r i c ; It is not d i f f i c u l t to see the image of e v i l in what i s c a l l e d Juvena l i an s a t i r e . But the po in t is that Horat ian s a t i r e , which is l i g h t , urbane, even good-humoured, has a s i m i l a r imagery. The d i f f e r e n c e is l a r g e l y a matter o f tone. The one s t r e s s e s the hor ro r o f the e v i l , and the consequent f e a r . The o ther s t r e s s e s the r i d i c u l e , and evokes l augh te r , in a sense showing a g rea te r contempt f o r the t a r g e t , an outward conf idence in being ab le to escape the dangers of i t s e v i l . 3 Thus i t is a type of Hora t ian s a t i r e we f i n d in Gay, w i th the a t t a c k c loaked in the garments of the comic opera . He presents us w i th s a t i r e on at l e a s t four main f r o n t s ; s o c i a l , p o l i t i c a l , l i t e r a r y and m u s i c a l . Jonathan W i l d ' s presence is immediately recogn izab le in the cha rac te r o f Peachum, who is a l s o a t h i e f - t a k e r and scoundrel par  exce l 1ence. Peachum ( l i k e F i e l d i n g ' s Wi ld) represents the fo rces of 2 W i l l i a m Henry I r v i n g , John Gay; Favour i te of the Wits (New York, 1962), p. 252. 3 Queen's Q u a r t e r l y , LXX (1963), p. 35. 54 e v i l in the dramat ic c o n f l i c t . The p o l i t i c a l s a t i r e is focussed on Walpole and h is a d m i n i s t r a t i o n , who are e l a b o r a t e l y i d e n t i f i e d w i th Peachum and h is a s s o c i a t e s in t h e i r s w i n d l i n g and robbing of the p u b l i c . The p a r a l l e l s between Gay 's Newgate opera and F i e l d i n g ' s Newgate t a l e 4 extend even to the names of some of the cha rac te rs i nvo l ved . There is a Bob Bagshot in F i e l d i n g ' s t a l e and a Robin Bagshot p lays a minor ro1e in The Beggar 's Opera, Wi ld has i l l i c i t r e l a t i o n s w i th MoJ1y S t radd le who has her counterpar t in Sukey S t radd le in Gay's opera . Soc ia l and pol i t i c a l s a t i re pervades The Beggar 's Opera much as i t does Jonathan W i l d , There i s , however, a b a s i c d i f f e r e n c e to be noted — in the former a l l the q u a l i t i e s of the comic ope ra , the s e n t i m e n t a l i t y , melodrama and the music are present in such s t reng th as to tone down the s a t i r e , in Jonathan Wi ld there is much laughter and even some melo-drama, but t h e i r f unc t i on is to enhance the s a t i r i c e f f e c t . In the Pre face to the M i s c e l l a n l e s (1743), F i e l d i n g was ca re fu l to warn h is readers o f the dangers o f making hasty assumptions about h i s work, p a r t i c u l a r l y in t ak ing i t as an a s s a u l t on contemporary cond i t ions . As i t is not a very f a i t h f u l p o r t r a i t o f Jonathan Wi ld him-s e l f , so n e i t h e r is i t intended to represent the fea tu res o f any o ther person. Roguery — and not a rogue — is my s u b j e c t , and, as I have been so f a r from endeavour ing to p a r t i c u l a r i z e The p a r a l l e l s are f u l l y d i scussed in J . E. W e l l s , " F i e l d i n g ' s P o l i t i c a l Purpose in Jonathan W i l d , " PMLA, XXVIII (1913), p. 29. My treatment of Jonathan Wi ld extends W e l l s ' conc lus ions which I f i n d amply e s t a b l i s h e d by the t e x t . any i n d i v i d u a l , that I have with my utmost art avoided i t , so w i l l any such a p p l i c a t i o n be unfair in my reader, e s p e c i a l l y i f he know much of the great world, since he must then be acquainted, I bei leve, with more than one on whom he can f i x the resemblance.^ Now the claim "roguery, and not a rogue, is my subject," echoes the protective cry of a l l s a t i r i s t s and can be taken much as a p o l i t e f o r -mality, p a r t i c u l a r l y when the very next remark undermines the s i n c e r i t y of the utterance. It would have been immediately understood by F i e l d -ing's contemporaries that the hero Wild was c e r t a i n l y not of the "Great World," and that the author was a c t u a l l y prompting his readers to make the lo g i c a l associations. It is typical of F i e l d i n g that he lodges protests that he is not attacking anything in p a r t i c u l a r and then in-vites or rather commands special a p p l i c a t i o n . The following passage further i l l u s t r a t e s t h i s point; But without considering Newgate as no other than human nature with i t s mask o f f , which some very shameless writers have done -— a thought which no price should purchase me to entertain — I think we may be excused for suspecting, that the splendid palaces of the great are often no other than Newgate with the mask on. Nor do I know anything which can raise an honest man's indignation higher than that the same morals should be in one place attended with a l l imaginable misery and infamy, and in the other, with the highest luxury and honour....6 F i e l d i n g can be very blunt, but I think his complete s i n c e r i t y and the touching earnestness of his concern with conditions-as-they-were come The Works of Henry F i e l d i n g (New York, 1899), v o l . X, p. x v i . The Henley edn. does not include t h i s Preface. Preface to the Miseel 1 an ies, (17^3) , v o l . X, p. x v i i . 56 home to the reader because of t h i s d i r e c t n e s s . Many of the po in t s made in the P re face are s t ressed again in the Adver t isement from the Pub-l i s t e r to the Reader that came out in the co r rec ted 175^ e d i t i o n ; The t r u t h i s , as a very co r rup t s t a te of morals is here rep resen ted , the scene seems very p rope r l y to have been l a i d in Newgate, nor do I see any reason f o r i n t roduc ing any a l -legory a t a l l , un less we w i l l agree that there a r e , w i thout those w a l l s , some other bodies o f men of worse morals than those w i t h i n , and who have, consequent ly , a r i gh t to change p laces w i th i t s present i n h a b i t a n t s . ( v o l . I I , Henley edn.) The accus ing tone, the i r o n i c scorn o f these l i n e s is c e r t a i n l y i n -d i c a t i v e o f a w e l l - d e f i n e d purpose on the par t o f the au thor . He is v i r t u a l l y c h a l l e n g i n g anyone to d i sag ree w i th the statement that ou t -s i d e of Newgate there are "some o ther bodies of men of worse morals than those w i t h i n . " It is o f ten d i f f i c u l t to determine when F i e l d i n g ' s d e c l a r a t i o n s are to be taken l i t e r a l l y . In h i s Pre face to h i s n a r r a -t i v e , f o r example, the a u t h o r ' s words o c c a s i o n a l l y r i ng w i th a s i n c e r i t y that may seem to remove s u s p i c i o n of any double meaning, yet F i e l d i n g ' s very i n s i s t e n c e that there are no hidden i m p l i c a t i o n s immediately arouses the r e a d e r ' s c u r i o s i t y and s t a r t s him look ing f o r va r ious shades of meaning. It is c o n t i n u a l l y emphasized in the P r e f a c e , in the Adver t i sement , and in the work i t s e l f that t h i s is a book of pur -pose. F i e l d i n g is out to expose e v i l , and Walpole and h i s government represent one of the prime t a r g e t s . Three chapters of Jonathan Wi ld were apparen t l y i nse r ted f o r t h e i r p o l i t i c a l i m p l i c a t i o n s . These chapters are i n t e r e s t i n g both f o r the p o l i t i c a l s a t i r e they con ta in and fo r t h e i r Sw i f t i an q u a l i t i e s . The f i r s t of t hese , Book I I , chapter V I , bears the subheading " o f H a t s . " W i l d ' s gang is desc r ibed as being d i v i d e d on the bas i s o f Tory and Whig p r i n c i p l e s . As these persons wore d i f f e r e n t PRINCIPLES, i . e . HATS, f requent d i s s e n s i o n s grew among them. There were p a r t i c u l a r l y two p a r t i e s , v i z . : those who wore hats FIERCELY cocked, and those who p r e f e r r e d the NAB or t rencher ha t , w i th the brim f l a p p i n g over t h e i r eyes . The former were c a l l e d CAVALIERS and TORY RORY RANTER BOYS, e t c , the l a t t e r went by the severa l names of WAGS, roundheads, shakebags, o l d n o l l s , and severa l o t h e r s . Between these con t inua l j a r s a r o s e , insomuch that they grew in t ime to t h ink there was something e s s e n t i a l in t h e i r d i f f e r -ences , and that t h e i r i n t e r e s t s were incompat ib le w i th each o t h e r , whereas, in t r u t h , the d i f f e r e n c e lay on ly in the fash ion of t h e i r h a t s . ( I I , 73-74) How very c l e a r , conc i se and u t t e r l y d e s t r u c t i v e , The reader is r e -minded of S w i f t ' s Ta 1 e o f a_ Tub where the three bro thers P e t e r , Mar t in and Jack so a l t e r the coats t h e i r f a t h e r l e f t them as to make them un-recogn izab le as being at one time e x a c t l y the same. S w i f t ' s a l l e g o r y goes f u r t h e r and is f a r more i n v o l v e d , but the p r i n c i p l e is the same. F i e l d i n g is a t t a c k i n g men whose p r i n c i p l e s are so sha l low that they are worn l i k e h a t s , f o r ornament o r f o r i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . Such p r i n c i p l e s are not founded in reason, they are not rooted in moral r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , they are ins tead b e l i e f s and c o n v i c t i o n s acqu i red as e a s i l y as a new hat . Such p r i n c i p l e s are changed as fash ion d i c t a t e s and those who hold d i f f e r e n t p r i n c i p l e s are hated and feared s imply because they are d i f f e r -en t . W i l d ' s gang, however, i s un i ted in a common cause , a cause Wi ld makes a l l too e x p l i c i t in h i s speech to h i s men; " I f the p u b l i c should 58 be weak enough to i n t e r e s t themselves in your q u a r r e l s , and to p r e f e r one pack to the o t h e r , w h i l e both are a iming at t h e i r pu rses , i t is your bus iness to laugh a t , not im i ta te t h e i r f o l l y " ( l l , 75). F i e l d i n g , l i k e S w i f t , found r i d i c u l o u s much of the fawning and ceremony that went on in cour t c i r c l e s . It is i n t e r e s t i n g to note what F i e l d i n g has to say about " r i b b a n d s " — a comment that is not u n l i k e that of Swi f t in G u l l i v e r ' s "Voyage to L I I1 i p u t " when he desc r i bes the cour t ceremonies o f the L i l l i p u t i a n s . H i s t o r y w i l l help c l a r i f y t h i s po in t as i t r e l a t e s to F i e l d i n g ' s s a t i r e . In 1725 Walpole persuaded the k ing to rev i ve the Order of the Bath "an a r t f u l bank of t h i r t y - s i x r ibbands to supply a fund of f a v o u r s . " Walpole h imse l f was on May 27 of that year invested w i th the order which he r e l i n q u i s h e d on June 26, 1726, so that he cou ld be advanced to the order of Ga r te r . Th is promotion of a commoner, fo r the f i r s t t ime s i nce 1660, caused much j e a l o u s y among the n o b i l i t y and suggested the nickname of " S i r B l u e s t r i n g " by which he was commonly a s s a i l e d in lampoons of the t ime . ' ' F i e l d i n g a l l u d e s to t h i s a f f a i r in the scene between Wi ld and B luesk in when the l a t t e r f a i l s to d e l i v e r a s t o l e n watch to h i s c h i e f . As a l a s t r e s o r t , a f t e r e x p l a i n i n g why every gang needs a l e a d e r , and what the " a b s o l u t e r i g h t s " of that leader should be, Wi ld remarks; "and su re l y there is none in the whole gang who hath l ess reason to complain than you, you have tas ted of my f a v o u r s ; w i tness that p iece of r ibbon you wear in your ha t , w i th which I dubbed you c a p t a i n " ( l l , ]k0). However, B lue -7 Wei I s , p. 30. s k i n is unimpressed by t h i s favour and r e p l i e s to the e f f e c t that the r ibbon means no th ing , a rep ly that e x t r a c t s the f o l l o w i n g comment from W i l d ; Might not a man as reasonably t e l l a m i n i s t e r of s t a t e , S i r , you have given me the shadow on ly? The r ibbon or the bauble tha t you gave me impl ies that I have e i t h e r s i g n a l i z e d myse l f , by some great a c t i o n , f o r the bene f i t and g lo ry of my coun t r y , o r at l e a s t that I am descended from those who have done s o . I know mysel f to be a s c o u n d r e l , and so have been those few ances to rs I can remember, or have ever heard o f . . . . ( I I , 140-141) Th is is u t t e r l y preposterous in the Great Man's eyes of cou rse , but to the reader the suggest ion is c l e a r . F i e l d i n g is aga in s t r e s s i n g h i s regre t that such pomp and ceremony and respect is pa id by the uninformed (and many o f the informed as we l l ) to the undeserv ing . Chapter XI of Book III c a r r i e s the s u b - t i t l e "A Scheme so deeply l a i d that i t shames a l l the p o l i t i c s of t h i s our age, w i th d i g r e s s i o n and s u b - d i g r e s s i o n . " Here we have the unscrupulous Wi ld contempla t ing ways of r u i n i n g h i s f r i e n d H e a r t f r e e , "whose very name sounded odious in h i s e a r s . " Having decided to charge Hear t f ree w i th t r y i n g to def raud h i s c r e d i t o r s by sending h is w i fe away w i th t h e i r remaining va luab les — W i l d ' s own suggest ion — h is way was c l e a r ; What remained to cons ide r was on l y the quomodo, and the person or too l to be employed, f o r the stage of the wor ld d i f f e r s from that in Dru ry - lane p r i n c i p a l l y in t h i s — that whereas, on the l a t t e r , the hero or c h i e f f i g u r e i s almost c o n t i n u a l l y before your eyes , w h i l s t the under -ac to rs are not seen above once in an even ing , now, on the former, the hero or great man is always behind the c u r t a i n , and seldom or never appears or doth any th ing in h is own person. He doth indeed, in t h i s grand drama, ra ther perform the par t of the prompter, and doth 60 i n s t r u c t the w e l l - d r e s s e d f i g u r e s , who are s t r u t t i n g in p u b l i c on the s tage , what to say and do. ( I I , 131) This is s a t i r e c loaked in i t s sheerest v e i l s . The whole image is f r i g h t e n i n g when one th inks of the power of t h i s s i n g l e person con-t r o l l i n g the " w e l l - d r e s s e d f i g u r e s " who are merely pawns to h is w ishes . And these puppets are va in c rea tu res who in s p i t e of being t o l d what to do, even what to say , s t i l l " s t r u t " before the p u b l i c and pretend to deserve t h e i r importance. The scene is a v a r i a t i o n of the " c o u r t o f Wax" image in Pope 's "Fou r th S a t i r e o f Dr. John Donne;" Such pa in ted Puppets! such a v a r n i s h ' d Race Of ho l low Gewgaws, on ly Dress and Face, Such waxen Noses, s t a t e l y , s t a r i n g t h i n g s , g No wonder some Fo lks bow, and th ink them KINGS. In F i e l d i n g the brunt of the a t t ack f a l l s on the puppet master as the source of the e v i l , but a l l the i m p l i c a t i o n s o f a d i seased s o c i e t y are p resen t . Th is puppet imagery, as we l l as being a s tock image fo r the s a t i r i s t to draw on , was extremely app rop r i a te f o r F i e l d i n g ' s purpose, f o r Walpole was o f ten presented as puppet master by the O p p o s i t i o n ' s q p o l i t i c a l w r i t e r s . Th is e n t i r e chapter is a d i r e c t a t t ack on the a d -m i n i s t r a t i o n . It c o n t r i b u t e s l i t t l e i f any th ing to the s to ry of Wi ld and H e a r t f r e e , but i t does score some d i r e c t h i t s on the s a t i r i s t ' s The Poems o f A lexander Pope, Twickenham e d i t i o n , ed . John Butt (London, 1939), v o l . I V , p. 43, l i n e s 208-211. W e l l s , op. c i t . , p. 39. 61 t a r g e t . The i rony of the f o l l o w i n g passage is obv ious , so too , I t h ink is the f r u s t r a t e d anger and concern that prompted i t ; A GREAT MAN ought to do h i s bus iness by o t h e r s , to employ hands as we have before s a i d , to h i s purposes, and keep h imse l f as much behind the c u r t a i n as p o s s i b l e , and though i t must be acknowledged that two very great men, whose names w i l l be both recorded in h i s t o r y , d id in these l a t t e r t imes come f o r t h themselves on the s tage , and d id hack and hew and lay each o ther most c r u e l l y open to the d i v e r s i o n of the spec-t a t o r s , yet t h i s must be mentioned ra ther as an example of avoidance than i m i t a t i o n . . . . ( I I , 132) F i e l d i n g does not name any names, but he does not have to to make the s a t i r e take on a very personal no te . In chapter I I I of Book IV we wi tness the c o n f l i c t between Wi ld and Johnson as to who is going to r u l e the inmates of Newgate. It is gen-e r a l l y agreed that Johnson here represents Walpole and that the e l e c t i o n in Newgate symbol izes the par l i amenta ry e l e c t i o n s of 1741, in which W a l p o l e ' s m a j o r i t y , reduced to s i x t e e n , was so uncer ta in that he r e -s i g n e d . ' ^ Who Wi ld represents has been the sub jec t o f much s p e c u l a t i o n , w i th Char les Townshend, W i l l i a m P u l t e n e y , and John Ca r te re t being put f o r t h as p o s s i b i l i t i e s . ^ The author i n se r t s a very sober speech a t t h i s po in t in the form of the u t te rances of the " ve ry grave man" which take p lace a f t e r Wi ld has succeeded in ous t i ng Johnson from h is p o s i t i o n o f power. This gentleman se ts f o r t h the d isadvantages o f t h e i r present 10 , • m I rw in , p. 40 . ' ' Suggested by W. L. Cross (The H i s to r y o f Henry F i e l d i n g ) , W e l l s , and I rw in , r e s p e c t i v e l y . 62 system and even suggests a reasonable a l t e r n a t i v e . Yet wh i l e h i s speech "was rece ived w i th much app lause , . . . W i l d cont inued as before to levy c o n t r i b u t i o n s among the p r i s o n e r s , to apply the garn ish to h i s own use , and to s t r u t openly in the ornaments he had s t r i p p e d from Johnson" (I I, 156). It is s i g n i f i c a n t that Wi ld is always g r e a t , he r i s e s above every s i t u a t i o n that con f ron ts him, even to the very end when he is r a i sed on the gal lows to swing high above h i s f e l l o w men. " Indeed , wh i l e g rea t -ness c o n s i s t s in power, p r i d e , i n s o l e n c e , and doing m i s c h i e f to mankind — to speak out wh i le a great man and a great rogue are synonomous terms, so long s h a l l Wi ld stand u n r i v a l l e d on the p i n n a c l e of GREATNESS" ( l l , 205). Roguery and greatness are synonomous in F i e l d i n g ' s s o c i e t y and the great men are a l l too p l e n t i f u l . To cont inue t h i s d i s c u s s i o n f u r t h e r , i t is necessary that the p o l i t i c a l s a t i r e be cons idered as an aspect o f the c o n f l i c t between greatness and goodness that is the a l l e g o r i c a l bas is of the work. Th is "fundamental e t h i c a l problem" ( I r w i n ' s phrase) is r e a l l y inseparab le from the c o n s i d e r a t i o n of the e s s e n t i a l "badness" or "goodness" of man, a problem which found f requent exp ress ion in the w r i t i n g s of e i g h t e e n t h -century m o r a l i s t s . One must cons ide r F i e l d i n g h imse l f as a moral s a t i r i s t in the sense that he was so i n tense l y concerned w i th t h i s whole ques t i on . He took upon h imse l f the task o f expos ing and r i d i c u l i n g the great men of h i s s o c i e t y . The author is e x p l i c i t about h i s own views on the sub-j e c t o f goodness and greatness in h i s Pre face to the Mi seel 1 an i e s : In R e a l i t y , no Q u a l i t i e s can be more d i s t i n c t ; f o r as i t can -not be doubted but that Benevolence, Honour, Honesty, and Cha r i t y make a good man, so must i t be confessed that the 63 Ingred ients which compose the former o f these c h a r a c t e r s , bear no Analogy t o , nor Dependence on those which c o n s t i t u t e the l a t -t e r . A Man may the re fo re be Great wi thout being Good, or Good wi thout being Great . S i m i l a r l y , in the opening chapter of Jonathan Wi 1d the author de f i nes h i s terms" "no two th ings can p o s s i b l y be more d i s t i n c t from each o t h e r , f o r greatness c o n s i s t s in b r i n g i n g a l l manner of m i s c h i e f on mankind, and goodness in removing i t from them" ( I I , 3 ) . The " g r e a t man" as seen by the e igh teen th -cen tu ry v iewer had severa l 12 no tab le c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . F i r s t he had to possess a r u t h l e s s , i n s a t i -a b l e personal a m b i t i o n . We look at W i l d ; "As h i s most powerful and p r e -dominant pass ion was a m b i t i o n , so nature had, w i th consummate p r o p r i e t y , adapted a l l h i s f a c u l t i e s to the a t t a i n i n g those g l o r i o u s ends to which h i s pass ion d i r e c t e d him" ( l l , 201) . He had to be i n v e n t i v e , a r t f u l and r e s o l u t e in eve ry th ing that con t r i bu ted to the at ta inment of h i s own g o a l s . He had to be b o l d , cunning and a v a r i c i o u s in f a c t , he had to be j u s t l i k e Jonathan Wi ld the Great . A l l these requirements were r e a d i l y a t t r i b u t e d to p o l i t i c i a n s who had become great not by v i r t u e of t h e i r i n t e g r i t y or personal a b i l i t y to perform the func t i ons of t h e i r o f f i c e , but through l y i n g or scheming or b r i b i n g or s imply fawning over someone a l ready in a p o s i t i o n o f power. It was a common view to see the " g r e a t man" as conqueror — and h i s t o r y prov ided numerous examples in the form of A lexander , Lou is XIV, Char les X I I , a l l men who l i v e d I am here making use of I rw in ' s d i s c u s s i o n of t h i s sub jec t as a bas i s f o r my p r e s e n t a t i o n . s o l e l y f o r the g r a t i f i c a t i o n of t h e i r own d r i v i n g ambi t ions and l u s t s . The "good man" l i k e w i s e had h is ro le in the l i t e r a t u r e of the day. He was ra ther an invo lved f i g u r e in h i s combinat ion of p u b l i c and p r i v a t e r o l e s , yet he was always r e c o g n i z a b l e . He was i nhe ren t l y a good C h r i s -t i a n , a p a t r i o t , a man of moderate hab i t s ( in h i s mature years i f not in h i s you th ) , he was k ind and generous, even to the po in t of being tender upon o c c a s i o n , and above a l l he possessed that most k i n g l y of v i r t u e s , benevolence. F i e l d i n g ' s works are f i l l e d w i th good men; Adams, A l l -wor thy, and Tom Jones , f o r example - - but f o r the most par t they i n -hab i t h i s l a t e r works , j u s t as h is e a r l y w r i t i n g s were perhaps more no tab le f o r the re fe rences to the great man as p o l i t i c i a n , conqueror or rogue. Pasqu in , The H i s t o r i ca 1 Reg i s t e r , Don Q_u ixo te in Engl and , Tom  Thumb, a l l reveal h i s p reoccupat ion w i th the moral ques t ions of h i s t ime. The type of good man mentioned above is more than we f i n d in Hear t -f r e e . Whi le there is c e r t a i n l y noth ing e v i l about H e a r t f r e e , he is v i r t uous to the extent of being too good to be t r ue . His is a pass i ve r o l e in the a l l e g o r y , he symbol izes good in order to p rov ide a s u i t a b l e f o i l f o r the e v i l that is Jonathan W i l d . Wi ld the a n t i - h e r o is the l i v i n g , d r i v i n g f o r ce in t h i s drama. It is Wi ld we watch, f a s c i n a t e d by h i s sheer v i l l a i n y . Hear t f ree is l i t t l e more than a prop to p lace s i de by s i de w i th the monster in o rder to enhance the l a t t e r ' s sheer l ack of goodness. Jonathan Wi ld is s a t i r e , i t s cha rac te rs are not meant to be b e l i e v a b l e as o rd ina ry human be ings , but ra ther they are to be seen as embodiments of e i t h e r good or of e v i l . There is no b lend ing of the two as there is in F i e l d i n g ' s l a t e r n o v e l s . 65 Jonathan Wi ld i s more than a moral n a r r a t i v e , i t is s a t i r e , w i th a l l the d e l i g h t f u l v a r i a t i o n s of tone and meaning, the sus ta ined i r ony , and the u l t ima te goal of r i d i c u l e that i s found in such works as A Tale  of a_ Tub and Gul 1 i v e r ' s Travel s . In f a c t , F i e l d i n g ' s work bears r e -markable resemblances to S w i f t ' s T a l e . There i s , fo r example, the same b a s i c image to be found in both o f them. In the Ta le the dominant image is tha t o f the mountebank l i v i n g in a wor ld comple te ly g iven over to f r a u d , ambi t ion and greed. A l l the a c t i v i t y of t h i s Tubbian s o c i e t y f i t s b e a u t i f u l l y in to the image o f Bedlam w i th the mountebanks on t h e i r i t i n e r a n t stages the maddest, most dangerous of a l l . In Jonathan Wi ld the foca l po in t of the s a t i r i c a t t ack i s the highwayman, the great man in s o c i e t y ; It is the highwayman in p o l i t i c s , the man who is t r a d i n g on the good w i l l and ignorance o f the p u b l i c that Wi ld rep resen ts . The v i l l a i n ' s stage i t i n e r a n t u l t i m a t e l y becomes the g a l l o w s , from there he swings out t r iumphant ly above the heads o f the people he has duped. It is on the gal lows that he reaches the p i nnac le o f h i s g rea tness . Many of the scenes of F i e l d i n g ' s Newgate t a l e a l s o suggest the comic author of Tom Jones nea r l y as much as they do F i e l d i n g the s a t -i r i s t . Here too is found the same d e l i g h t f u l dev ice of the mock-ep ic s i m i l e which is used w i th such e f f e c t in F i e l d i n g ' s n o v e l s . There is a s l i g h t d i f f e r e n c e however, because here the mock-epic dev ices are used more f o r the purpose o f s a t i r e than f o r t h e i r comic e f f e c t s . For example, when Jonathan catches F i r eb l ood in the arms of L a e t i t i a , the scene is desc r ibed in the f o l l o w i n g manner: As the generous b u l l who, having long depastured among 66 a number o f cows, and thence con t rac ted an op in i on that these cows are a l l h i s own p rope r t y , i f he beholds another b u l l b e s t r i d e a cow w i t h i n h i s w a l k s , he roars a l o u d , and th reatens ins tan t vengeance w i th h i s horns , t i l l the whole p a r i s h are alarmed w i th h i s b e l l o w i n g ; not w i th l ess no i se nor l ess d read-fu l menaces d i d the fu ry o f Wi ld burs t f o r t h and t e r r i f y the whole gate . Long t ime d id rage render h i s vo i ce i n a r t i c u l a t e to the heare r ; as when, at a v i s i t i n g day, f i f t e e n or s i x t e e n or perhaps twice as many fema les , of d e l i c a t e but s h r i l l p i p e s , e j a c u l a t e a l l at once on d i f f e r e n t s u b j e c t s , a l l i s sound o n l y , the harmony e n t i r e l y melodious indeed, but conveys no idea to our e a r s ; but a t l eng th , when reason began to get the be t -t e r o f h i s p a s s i o n , which l a t t e r , being deser ted by h i s b r e a t h , began a l i t t l e to r e t r e a t , the f o l l o w i n g accents leapt over the hedge of h is t e e t h , or ra ther the d i t c h o f h i s gums, whence those hedgestakes had long s ince by a pat ten been d i s p l a c e d in b a t t l e w i th an amazon of Drury. ( I I , 181-182) This mock-epic s i m i l e is the p e r f e c t v e h i c l e to make the scene appear l u d i c r o u s . F i e l d i n g uses animal imagery to s i nk the emotion and pass ions desc r i bed to the depths o f b e s t i a l i t y . It is humorous, but the s a t i r i s t ' s laugh is one o f d i s g u s t and contempt. Such exp ress ions as " l o n g t ime d id rage render h i s vo ice i n a r t i c u l a t e " are so sonorous and so s t a t e l y but so out o f p lace coming from t h i s screaming, t o o t h l e s s scoundrel com-p l e t e l y mad w i th rage. It is humorous, but a l s o comple te ly d e v a s t a t i n g . The imagery and techniques are those of a s k i l f u l s a t i r i s t . W i l d ' s rage is g iven e p i c over tones as he is the mock-epic hero , but they on l y i n -t e n s i f y the squa lo r and p e t t i n e s s of the whole scene. W. R. Irwin sees Jonathan Wi1d as an imperfect v e r s i o n of the famous "comic e p i c poem in p rose " which F i e l d i n g developed in h i s l a t e r works. Many o f the s i m i l a r i t i e s Irwin po in t s out are i n t e r e s t i n g -~ as are the d i f f e r e n c e s . The manner in which F i e l d i n g f i t t e d the components of the se r i ous e p i c in to h is comic scheme i s s imply s ta ted in the Pre face to Joseph Andrews: Now, a comic romance is a comic e p i c poem in p rose , d i f f e r i n g from comedy, as the se r i ous e p i c from t ragedy: i t s a c t i o n being more extended and comprehensive, c o n t a i n i n g a much l a rge r c i r c l e of i n c i d e n t s , and i n t r oduc ing a g rea te r v a r i e t y of c h a r a c t e r s . It d i f f e r s from the se r i ous romance, in i t s f a b l e and a c t i o n , in t h i s , that as in the one these are grave and solemn, so in the o ther they are l i g h t and r i d i c u l o u s ; i t d i f f e r s in i t s cha rac te rs by in t roduc ing persons of i n f e r -i o r manners, whereas the grave romance se ts the h ighest before us ; l a s t l y , in i t s sent iments and d i c t i o n , by p r e s e r v -ing the l ud i c rous ins tead of the sub l ime. ( I , 18) Jonathan Wi ld f a i l s to f i l l these requirements in some of i t s major a s p e c t s . For one t h i n g , i t is imposs ib le to regard the g rea tness-good-ness theme as being " l i g h t and r i d i c u l o u s , " j u s t as i t is d i f f i c u l t to see W i l d ' s pe rsecu t i on o f Hear t f ree as anyth ing but grave. Most impor-tant of course i f the f a c t tha t the comedy is f o r the sake of the s a t i r i c e f f e c t and not the o ther way around. However, the cha rac te rs do f i t n i c e l y in to the ro le of the comic e p i c in some respec t s . Wi ld is the very oppos i te o f the t r a d i t i o n a l e p i c hero , a pe r f ec t mockery o f the e p i c q u a l i t i e s we are accustomed to t h i n k i n g such a hero should possess . Yet because we r e a l i z e that the q u a l i t i e s which make Wi ld a great v i l l a i n are i d e n t i c a l to those which enable men in o ther walks of l i f e to a t t a i n h e r o i c s ta tu re in the eyes of the p u b l i c , the sham invo lved in such c la ims to greatness is underscored. The manners o f Wi ld and h is crew are con-s i s t e n t l y v u l g a r , i gnob le and even v i c i o u s , those o f the Hear t f rees are a l s o dec ided l y unhero i c . The sent iments c o n t i n u a l l y present us w i th the l u d i c r o u s ins tead of the sub l ime , in f a c t , Wi ld can s c a r c e l y open h i s mouth wi thout u t t e r i n g something the author has i r o n i c a l l y i nve r t ed . The ques t ion of d i c t i o n has been p a r t i a l l y i l l u s t r a t e d a l r e a d y , F i e l d -ing has f i l l e d the work w i th l u d i c r o u s language in the form of h i s mock-epic s i m i l e s and he ro i c e p i t h e t s . It is of course the i ncongru i t y between the t h i ng he is d e s c r i b i n g and the terms in which he desc r i bes i t that p rov ides the s u r p r i s i n g absu rd i t y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f h i s comic e p i c s . Ep ic convent ions such as the d i g r e s s i o n , the t r a v e l t a l e , the d i s c o v e r y , are employed by F i e l d i n g in a manner that h in t s at the l a t e r success he w i l l have w i th these same dev ices in h i s comic master -p i e c e s . Jonathan Wi ld possesses , as has been shown, many c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f what F i e l d i n g termed the comic prose e p i c , but as Irwin po in t s ou t ; Joseph And rews and Tom Jones are fundamenta l ly good-humoured works, in which se r i ous v i c e s are ra ther the a c c i d e n t a l consequences of some human f r a i l t y or f o i b l e , than causes h a b i t u a l l y e x i s t i n g in the mind. In Jonathan Wi ld the s i t -ua t ion is reve rsed . The sus ta ined i rony revea ls an e v i l which is fundamenta l , i t i s the humorous unmaskinq of a f f e c t a t i o n 1 3 which o c c a s i o n a l l y seems i n c i d e n t a l . J This can be r e c o n c i l e d on ly in par t w i th the view of F i e l d i n g as a m o r a l i s t , f o r wh i l e he c e r t a i n l y revealed a s t rong moral purpose in a l l h i s w r i t i n g s , very few of them are u l t i m a t e l y s a t i r i c a l . In Jonathan Wi ld the s a t i r e d i r e c t e d towards f ash ionab le s o c i e t y , towards greatness in a l l i t s v a i n , g rasp ing forms, and towards a f f e c t a t i o n and hypocr i sy in g e n e r a l , i s so i n t e n s i f i e d as to become the dominant s t r a i n I rw in , p. 106. in the work. Wi ld h imse l f comes to stand f o r more than any s i n g l e co r rup t statesman of F i e l d i n g ' s day, he comes to symbol ize e v i l in i t s general sense. The f i g u r e of the great man as highwayman dominates the s a t i r e . Wi ld becomes a symbol of i n d e s t r u c t i b l e e v i l , a man who has the cunning and the phys i ca l a b i l i t y and the d e s i r e to c a p i t a l i z e on h i s f e l l o w human be ings ' weaknesses in order to ach ieve h i s own ga ins . By v i r t u e of i t s f i e r c e n e s s and the cons i s tency of i t s i rony as we l l as the c a l -cu la ted p o l i s h of i t s s t y l e , the work i n v i t e s comparison wi th such sa t i res as Gul 1 i ve r 1 s Travel s or A Tal e of Tub. But nowhere in these works i s there a s i n g l e dominant symbol of e v i l to match the ove r -powering wickedness o f Jonathan Wi ld the Great . He is a s a t a n i c f i g u r e , but one w i th many of the a t t r a c t i o n s of M i l t o n ' s D e v i l . It is t h i s tha t makes him the more to be f e a r e d . Because he is a t t r a c t i v e , b e c a u s e he can gain the respect of h i s f o l l o w e r s and thus a foo tho ld in s o c i e t y , he can remain unhindered and unpunished as he goes h is e v i l way. It i s a s t r ange , comple te ly inver ted wor ld that we f i n d in Jonathan  W i l d , a t w i s t e d , co r rup t s o c i e t y which puts a l l the emphasis on the wrong t r a i t s o f human c h a r a c t e r . The s a t i r e is r e l e n t l e s s l y sus ta ined — Jonathan Wi ld swings out of the wor ld w i th a b o t t l e screw that he had l i f t e d from the pa rson ' s pocket c lu tched t r iumphant ly in h i s hand. It is a f i t t i n g end, but the po in t that is c o n s i s t e n t l y s t r essed is that the v i l l a i n never re forms, good does not t r iumph, the Wi lds never repent . W i th in the framework o f the s a t i r e the e v i l is s t i l l w i th us , the great men s t i l l ex i s t . Sa t i r i s t to Nove 1 i.s t F i e l d i n g ' s r i gh t to be c a l l e d an accompl ished s a t i r i s t on the bas i s o f h i s e a r l y dramat ic w r i t i n g s and h is f i r s t e f f o r t s in p rose , The Mi seel 1 an i e s , has a l ready been e s t a b l i s h e d . What I now hope to show is that he never abandoned comple te ly the ro le of s a t i r i s t in h i s n o v e l s , but r a t h e r , that he became more a c r i t i c o f h i s s o c i e t y than eve r . The c rea to r o f comedy, f a r c e , bur lesque and dramat ic s a t i r e de-veloped in to a n o v e l i s t who combined a l l these elements in to a unique form of moral s a t i r e . Th is mode of w r i t i n g F i e l d i n g c l e a r l y de f ined in the Pre face to Joseph Andrews. Whi le t h i s much-quoted Pre face should not be a p p l i e d e x t e n s i v e l y to any th ing more than Joseph Andrews i t s e l f , i t does have i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r a l l h i s s a t i r e . Since a l l F i e l d i n g ' s novels are i n -fused w i th the s p i r i t of s a t i r e , i t is e s s e n t i a l to keep in mind h i s exp lana t i on of what c o n s t i t u t e s the R i d i c u l o u s ; 71 The on ly source of the t rue R i d i c u l o u s (as i t appears to me) i s a f f e c t a t i o n . But though i t a r i s e s from one sp r i ng o n l y , when we cons ide r the i n f i n i t e streams in to which t h i s one branches, we s h a l l p r e s e n t l y cease to admire at the copious f i e l d i t a f f o r d s to an obse rve r . Now, a f f e c t a t i o n proceeds from one of these two causes , van i t y or hypoc r i sy ; f o r as van i t y puts us on a f f e c t i n g f a l s e c h a r a c t e r s , in o rder to purchase app lause , so hypocr i sy se ts us on an endeavour to avo id censure , by concea l i ng our v i c e s under an appearance of t h e i r oppos i t e v i r t u e s 1 ( I I , 21-22) F i e l d i n g requests tha t we, as "good-natured r e a d e r s , " apply these ob-s e r v a t i o n s to h i s w r i t i n g . Sure ly then we are j u s t i f i e d in c a r r y i n g t h i s concept of the r i d i c u l o u s beyond Joseph Andrews, f o r the a u t h o r ' s no t ions of what makes f o r the r i d i c u l o u s have proven in h i s p rev ious works to be q u i t e unchanging. His t a rge t s are those of s a t i r i s t s of al1 ages. But l e t us look at F i e l d i n g the s a t i r i s t f o r a moment. His best known s a t i r e s in the Augustan manner are h is rehearsa l p l a y s , h i s f a r c e s , and Jonathan W i l d . In these works he del i b e r a t e l y a l igns h imse l f w i th Pope and Swi f t in the war aga ins t dul1ness, a v a r i c e , hypocr isy — a l l the e v i l s of s o c i e t y that are the t r a d i t i o n a l t a rge ts of the s a t i r i s t . As Ronald Paulson po in t s ou t , however, thece is another s t r a i n of F i e l d i n g ' s s a t i r e in which the cen t ra l f i g u r e is a good-natured man who is thrown in to v i o l e n t con tac t w i th s e l f i s h , l u s t f u l , o r m a l i c i o u s t y p e s . ' This form of s a t i r e i s r a d i c a l l y d i f f e r e n t from that which we Ronald P a u l s o n , e d . , F i e l d i n g , A C o l l e c t i o n o f C r i t i c a l Essays (New J e r s e y , 1962), p. 3 . 72 f i n d in something 1 ike Jonathan W i l d . It has, f o r one t h i n g , the added dimensions inherent in the n o v e l , the wor ld can no longer be seen on ly in terms of b lack and whi te o r good and e v i l . In h i s s a t i r e on the great man in s o c i e t y , F i e l d i n g made W i l d , the p e r s o n i f i c a t i o n o f e v i l , the cen t ra l f i g u r e . Our eyes are r i v e t e d on W i l d , .it is he who is the l i f e - f o r c e of the n a r r a t i v e . Consequent ly , the good which ac ts as a f o i l to t h i s e v i l is s imply t h a t , a f o i l , i t is a backdrop aga ins t which the e v i l is thrown in to v i v i d c o n t r a s t . The Hear t f rees are l i t t l e more than c a r i c a t u r e s . They do not emerge as people f o r they are not mean to do so . Th is i s perhaps why Jonathan Wi ld is g e n e r a l l y regarded as F i e l d i n g ' s best formal s a t i r e , f o r i t is here that he is most d i r e c t l y concerned w i th the p resen ta t i on of e v i l . But the pose of Augustan s a t i r i s t does not r e a l l y become him, and few would rank h i s e a r l y s a t i r e s among h i s most i n t e r e s t i n g p roduc t i ons . F i e l d i n g is not at h i s best when t r y i n g to make us s o l e l y aware of the e v i l , o r the h o r r i b l e consequences of the e v i l , in h i s s o c i e t y . He f unc t i ons best as a hopeful s a t i r i s t ; he is aware of s o c i e t y ' s f o l l i e s and v i c e s but he does not i s o l a t e them from the good in the same way a s , fo r ex -ample, d id h i s predecessors Swi f t and Pope. The l a t t e r are d e s p a i r i n g s a t i r i s t s preoccup ied w i th the exposure of the e v i l , they tend to show b lack aga ins t a background of w h i t e , whereas in h i s n o v e l s , F i e l d i n g works in a l l the c o l o r s o f the spectrum. The wor ld o f the s a t i r i s t is f a r more v i o l e n t l y symbol ic than that o f the n o v e l i s t . In h i s n o v e l s , F i e l d i n g ' s persona is no longer " S c r i b l e r u s Secondus," the hack w r i t e r or the ph i l osopher or the s c i e n t i f i c p ro -73 j e c t o r who, 1 ike S w i f t ' s persona, i s a prime ta rge t of the s a t i r e . S c r i b l e r u s is rep laced by F i e l d i n g the n a r r a t o r , o f ten a s e l f - c o n s c i o u s f i g u r e and one who f requen t l y looms l a rge r than the cha rac te rs of the novels themselves. In Tom Jones , f o r example, we see the n o v e l i s t as puppet-master , a man in con t ro l of our every emot ion, in Amel i a , he is a man preoccup ied w i th s o c i a l reforms and in ten t upon propos ing a moral d o c t r i n e . In a l l h i s novels there is the und isgu ised attempt to p ro -duce i n s t r u c t i v e s a t i r e . As the na r ra to r in t roduces h i s assortment of good and bad cha rac te rs he is d e f i n i n g a p o s i t i v e and d e t a i l e d code of proper conduct ; Much of the t ime (as in Joseph And rews) F i e l d i n g keeps h is reade r ' s a t t e n t i o n focused on the T r u l l i b e r s and Tow-wouses, whose unamiable q u a l i t i e s are exposed by contact w i th the good man. But in two ways the emphasis tends to s h i f t from the E v i l to the Good, e i t h e r F i e l d i n g becomes so sympathet ic w i th h is good-natured man's p l i g h t that he s u b s t i t u t e s t h i s c h a r a c t e r ' s s u f f e r i n g fo r the v igorous wrongdoing of h i s p e r s e c u t o r s , or he g ives us too d e t a i l e d a p i c t u r e of the Good. At h i s bes t , in Tom Jones , he main ta ins a balance between the e v i l and good fo rces which suggests to the reader that not the v i o l e n t l y symbol ic wor ld of the Augustan s a t i r -i s t s but the WHOLE wor ld i s being p resented . At h i s wors t , he a l l ows the two fo rces to sepa ra te , in Amel i a , in to the p i t i f u l , t e a r - s t a i n e d goodness of the Booth fami l y and the d i a b o l i c , almost mo t i ve less e v i l of the noble L o r d , Mrs. 2 E l l i s o n , and A m e l i a ' s s i s t e r Be t t y . I t h ink t h i s is an accura te a n a l y s i s of the issue in so f a r as i t re -l a t e s to the changing form of F i e l d i n g ' s s a t i r e . It is not the l i m i t e d wor ld of the Augustan s a t i r i s t s such as he presented in Jonathan Wi 1d Loc. c i t . tha t F i e l d i n g g i ves us in h i s n o v e l s , but the whole w o r l d . It is h i s awareness of both e v i l and good and the i m p o s s i b i l i t y of a wor ld in which one e x i s t s wi thout the o ther accompanied by h i s f a i t h in man's a b i l i t y to a t t a i n t h i s good in s p i t e of the abundance of e v i l — that adds a new dimension to h is s a t i r e . Rather than attempt to show merely what is wrong w i th s o c i e t y , he po in t s out these wrongs as d e v i a t i o n s from h i s own concept ion of a s t a b l e , hea l t hy , moral s o c i e t y . It is s a t i r e that is more f u n c t i o n a l l y c o r r e c t i v e than that which he gave us in h i s e a r l l e r w r i t i n g s . But as h is novels do represent a new d i r e c t i o n in F i e l d i n g ' s c a r e e r , i t might f i r s t be he lp fu l to look a t the ac tua l t a k e - o f f p o i n t , namely Shame!a, h i s bur lesque of R i c h a r d s o n ' s n o v e l . Pamela was f i r s t pub-l i s h e d anonymously on November 6, 1740, and was an immediate success . I ts p l o t was a d i sa rm ing l y s imple one. The dev i ce Richardson used was to na r ra te h i s s to ry by means of lengthy l e t t e r s from Pamela Andrews, a poor country g i r l in s e r v i c e w i th a wealthy f a m i l y . A f t e r the death of the m i s t r e s s of the household , Pamela is cons tan t l y a t tacked by the master , Squi re B. F a i l i n g to seduce the e l u s i v e Pamela, he t r i e s to rape her on severa l o c c a s i o n s , on ly to be f o i l e d a t the l a s t moment. When a l l e l s e f a i l s Squi re B. proposes mar r iage , h i s o f f e r is j o y f u l l y accep ted , and Pamela rece ives the reward of her v i r t u e . The book was a b e s t - s e l l e r by any s tandards , w i th f i v e e d i t i o n s being pub l i shed by 3 September of 1741. Bernard Dreissman, Pamela-Shamela ( U n i v e r s i t y of I960) . A b r i e f review o f Shame 1 a and Joseph Andrews context o f the reac t i on aga ins t Pamela. Nebraska P r e s s , wh ich f i l l s in the 75 The work was the sensa t ion of the l i t e r a r y season, but a swarm of a t t a c k s , p a r o d i e s , and spur ious con t i nua t i ons soon appeared to sour R i cha rdson ' s remarkable t r iumph. The f i r s t o f the o b j e c t i o n s to Pamela appeared on A p r i l 4, 1741, in the form of a pamphlet pub l i shed under the name of Mr. Conny Keyber. Th is d e l i g h t f u l bur lesque is g e n e r a l l y accepted as being the work of F i e l d i n g . Shame 1 a is an ingenious s a t i r e on a book that proposed as i t s end the c u l t i v a t i o n of the p r i n c i p l e s of v i r t u e and r e l i g i o n and c la imed to have i t s foundat ion in Truth and Nature . The pamphlet represented a con t i nua t i on of F i e l d i n g ' s prolonged a t t a c k on the l i t e r a r y t as tes of the age as we l l as an a t t a c k on the r e l i g i o u s and moral views Richardson expounded in Pamela. A t t r i b u t i n g the bur lesque to Conny Keyber was a th rus t at h is o l d enemy, Col ley C ibbe r , and a l s o a t Dr. Conyers M idd le ton . The l a t t e r ' s L i f e of C i cero conta ined an " E p i s t l e Ded ica to ry " to h i s pa t r on , Lord Hervey (the Sporus of Pope 's Ep i s t l e to Dr. A rbu thno t ) . F i e l d i n g s a t i n zed th is d e d i c a t i o n w i th h is ded ica to ry l e t t e r "To Miss Fanny," which was a c l o s e parody of M i d d l e t o n ' s e f f u s i o n . As w e l l , the general tone of Shamela's con fess ion is not u n l i k e that of C i b b e r ' s Apo logy, which was a popular l i t e r a r y p roduc t ion of 1740. F i e l d i n g h i t upon a p e r f e c t pseudonym and e x p l o i t e d i t s i m p l i c a t i o n s to the f u l l e s t degree. But wh i le Shame 1 a is a d e l i g h t f u l , r e f r e s h i n g p iece in i t s own r i g h t , i t s major a t t r a c t i o n l i e s in the f a c t that i t po in t s towards the Ian Watt , "Shame la , " F i e l d i n g , A C o l l e c t i o n o f C r i t i c a l Essays , ed . Ronald P a u l s o n , p. 47. 76 w r i t i n g of Joseph Andrews. Shame1 a is excel len t bur 1esque, and as Watt po in t s ou t , i t goes beyond i t s o r i g i n a l i n ten t i on as parody and takes on a l i f e of i t s own — but noth ing to compare w i th the l a t e r n o v e l . Joseph Andrews, then, was a l s o intended as a parody of R i c h a r d -son ' s n o v e l , but a l though the parody is obvious in the opening chapters i t is not r e a l l y s u s t a i n e d . The Pamela elements soon fade in to the background and the s to r y of Joseph and h i s f r i e n d Abraham Adams takes o f f on i t s own course . Rather than s imply c r i t i c i z e R i cha rdson ' s mas te rp iece , F i e l d i n g c rea ted one of h i s own that i l l u s t r a t e d h is reasons f o r d i s c r e d i t i n g Pamela. The su r face connect ions between the two novels are obv ious . F i e l d i n g i nve r t s the cen t ra l s i t u a t i o n and we have Joseph, Pamela 's b ro the r , a footman in the Booby household , s t r u g g l i n g hero-i c a l l y to p ro tec t h i s v i r t u e aga ins t the advances of Lady Booby. But whereas Pamela used her v i r t u e as a means to f u r t he r her own ends, Joseph cons tan t l y re fuses to take advantage of the o p p o r t u n i t i e s p laced before him. He remains chaste f o r h i s beloved Fanny and t rue to the teach ings of h i s f r i e n d Parson Adams. But i t is obvious from the s t a r t that F i e l d i n g intended something f a r d i f f e r e n t in Joseph Andrews than he had attempted in h i s parody. With on ly a few e x c e p t i o n s , such as Joseph ' s l e t t e r s to h i s s i s t e r , there is no attempt to bur lesque the ac tua l manner and s t y l e of R i cha rdson ' s book. The resemblances are s u b t l y ev iden t on every page, but they are not cas t in the form of bur lesque or mimicry . ln h i s study of Joseph Andrews B a t t e s t i n i n d i c a t e s the e s s e n t i a l d i f f e r e n c e in the s a t i r i c ends of the bur lesque and the 1ater n o v e l ; 77 Behind the d i s t i n c t i o n between the bur lesque of ,Shamela and the c o r r e c t i v e s a t i r e of Joseph Andrews are d ive rgen t mot i ves . In the f i r s t ins tance F i e l d i n g wished to expose the inherent f o o l i s h n e s s of R i cha rdson ' s book. T h i s , he f e l t , cou ld best be accompl ished by the undermining process of parody, the de-s t r u c t i v e mimicry of the very substance and tex tu re of Pamela. But the va lue of t r aves t y is l i m i t e d . It is a mode, as J . L. Davis has observed , e s s e n t i a l l y p a r a s i t i c , n e g a t i v i s t i c , and s u p e r f i c i a l . In Joseph Andrews the a l l u s i v e r i d i c u l e of Richardson is intended as a k ind of f o i l , s e t t i n g o f f to ad -vantage F i e l d i n g ' s own ambi t ious attempt at r e c o n s t r u c t i o n , at p r e s e n t i n g , in " t he Manner of C e r v a n t e s , " a f r esh concept ion of the a r t o f the n o v e l . 5 Indeed we need on ly re turn to F i e l d i n g ' s P re face to the novel to see what he in tended. He makes i t c l e a r that i t is no longer bu r lesque , but comedy that he i s w r i t i n g . In such w r i t i n g , he author po in t s ou t , bur lesque or parody may be admit ted in the d i c t i o n , but not in s e n t i -ment or in c h a r a c t e r s . Now in h is "comic e p i c poem in p r o s e , " F i e l d i n g se ts out to desc r i be the R i d i c u l o u s , and he has reminded us that i t is from the d i scove ry of a f f e c t a t i o n that the r i d i c u l o u s a r i s e s . S t r a i gh t parody stops shor t of F i e l d i n g ' s intended g o a l . Parody or bur lesque is in one sense a negat ive a r t , i t shows up the i n c o n s i s t e n c i e s and hypo-c r i s i e s , a l l the f a l s e p resen ta t i ons of l i f e and l i t e r a t u r e , but the reader must imagine f o r h imse l f the des i r ed happy medium. That is to say , the work parodied represents the one extreme, the parody i t s e l f ano ther , and the reade r ' s a t t e n t i o n , a f t e r s h i f t i n g back and f o r t h be-tween the two, comes to res t on an impl ied norm, an accepted s tandard . Joseph Andrews does not f unc t i on in qu i t e t h i s way. Th is element is M. C. B a t t e s t i n , The Moral Bas is of F i e l d i n g ' s A r t . A Study of  Joseph Andrews (Wesleyan U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1 9 5 9 ) , p. 9 . 78 p resen t , but there is much more as w e l l , there is the p i c t u r e o f s o c i e t y F i e l d i n g g ives us . He i l l u s t r a t e s h is norm, the d e s i r e d behaviour or moral code fo r the common man. The hear t o f the s a t i r e , as we l l as the se r i ous c r i t i c i s m of Pamela, is in the k ind of wor ld Joseph Andrews c r e a t e s . It is in t h i s f i c t i o n a l wor ld of Joseph and Adams that a f f e c t a t i o n and v a n i t y are pushed forward under the l i g h t of the r i d i c u l o u s to stand f o r t h naked and und isgu ised fo r a l l to see . The s a t i r e is more e f f e c t i v e by v i r t u e o f the in t imacy between na r ra to r and reader — the r e s u l t is s i m i l a r to hav ing a f r i e n d t e l l youthat you have ac ted l i k e a foo l ins tead of a p e r f e c t s t ranger making the a c c u s a t i o n . The former has much more s i g n i f i c a n c e than the l a t t e r . Formal s a t i r e demands a c e r t a i n a loo fness on the par t of the s a t i r i s t and because of t h i s i t is o f ten tempting to ignore h i s c r i e s ; he is the s t ranger w i th the w i l d look in h i s eyes s tand ing on the edge of the crowd screaming "you are a l l mad!" F i e l d i n g ' s techn ique , on the o ther hand, is to show in a f r i e n d l y manner j u s t how f o o l i s h we a l l can be. Th is technique is so much more i n s i d i o u s than the naked s a t i r e o f a work 1 ike Jonathan WiId that we are compel led to become invo lved to a g rea te r ex tent in the s to r y and are consequent ly more i n c l i n e d to, l i s t e n to what the s a t i r i s t i s s a y i n g . Parson Adams is the most f a s c i n a t i n g c r e a t i o n in the novel and the most e f f e c t i v e v e h i c l e of the s a t i r e . F i e l d i n g announced on the t i t l e page that h i s work was w r i t t e n in the manner of Cervan tes , and 7 9 there is a d e f i n i t e s p i r i t u a l kinship between the ridiculous and lovable Parson Adams and the equally ridiculous and lovable Don Quixote. Both are amusing figures and both have funds of idealism that no setback can diminish. Much of the comedy found in these works stems from the pre-dicaments these two f i n d themselves in as t h e i r ideal worlds c o n f l i c t with the u g l i e r r e a l i t i e s of the i r society. But th i s same source of comedy is a source of s a t i r e , for i t is often an uneasy laughter when we r e a l i z e t h e i r idealism is never defeated. It is for this reason that Parson Adams is such an e f f e c t i v e figure in the s a t i r e . He is r i d i c u l o u s , but he is good. When he blunders and appears rather f o o l i s h , there is no sudden unmasking of e v i l in any sense, he is a man who is far from perfect, but one who is s t i l l impressively good. His mis-takes, his l i t t l e v a n i t i e s and a f f e c t a t i o n s , are forgivable where those of the true hypocrite are not. Adams, l i k e his b i b l i c a l namesake, is the p e r s o n i f i c a t i o n of true f a i t h and char i t y . In this epic of the road his function is analogous to that of the persona of formal s a t i r e . He operates both separately and simultaneously in the three characters that Maynard Mack a t t r i b u t e s to the s a t i r i s t ; the " v i r bonus" or moral man, the " n a i f , " simple and unsophisticated, passing i m p l i c i t judgement upon the immorality that bewilders him, and the "hero," indignant and courageous, defending v i r -tue and the public good. 7 The standard held up as a f o i l to set o f f E. M. Thornbury, Henry Fielding's Theory of the Comic Prose Epic (Madison, 1 9 3 0 , p . 9 7 . 7 Maynard Mack, "The Muse of S a t i r e , " Yale Review, XL I ( 1 9 5 0 , p p . 88 - 9 0 . 80 the moral degeneracy of the age is embodied e s p e c i a l l y in the innocent g qu ixo t i sm of Abraham Adams. Even Joseph is more f u l l y aware of the wor ld around him than is the Pa rson , f o r he at l e a s t had the exper ience of three y e a r s ' at tendance upon Lady Booby. Adams se ts out on the highway to London in answer to an a d v e r t i s e -ment by a b o o k s e l l e r f o r manuscr ipt sermons, and h i s adventures on the road serve to i l l u m i n a t e both the e v i l and the good to be found in h i s s o c i e t y . His exper iences leave him undaunted, and wh i l e we o f ten laugh at him, we can never fee l contempt. As W. L. Cross po in t s ou t , i t is the man p r a c t i s e d in the ways of the w o r l d , not the i d e a l i s t , 9 who is s a t i r i z e d . Even in the ep isode of the supposed drowning of Parson Adams' son , when we see a l l h is C h r i s t i a n S to i c i sm peeled o f f and dropped use less to the ground l i k e a ra in s l i c k e r r i d d l e d w i th h o l e s , i t is not Adams who is the u l t ima te v i c t i m of the s a t i r e , i t is the s o c i e t y that expects t h i s type of reason to succeed. Parson Adams' sermoniz ing to Joseph about h i s reasons f o r marry ing Fanny is s t r i c t l y p r o f e s s i o n a l . He t e l l s him: Now, bei leve me, no C h r i s t a i n ought so to se t h i s heart on any person or t h i ng in t h i s w o r l d , but t h a t , whenever i t s h a l l be requ i red or taken from him in any manner, by D iv ine P rov idence , he may be a b l e , peaceab ly , q u i e t l y , and con ten ted l y , to res ign i t . ( 1 , 3 5 0 B a t t e s t i n , op. c i t . , p. 5 4 . W. L. C ross , I, 331. 81 Such are the d o c t r i n e s the good Parson p reaches , but F i e l d i n g shows us how such ru les c o n f l i c t w i th human i n s t i n c t s . The passage con t i nues . At which words one came h a s t i l y in and acquain ted Mr. Adams that h i s youngest son was drowned. He stood s i l e n t a moment, and soon began to stamp about the room and dep lo re h is l oss w i th the b i t t e r e s t agony. (1 , 35D However, we are not s u r p r i s e d a t h i s i ncons i s tency in the man's be-hav i ou r , fo r i t is p e r f e c t l y in keeping w i th the warm and human image of the parson the author has c r e a t e d . The s a t i r e is toned down to some degree f o r we can never a s s o c i a t e the harshness of the word hypoc r i t e w i th Adams, ye t the e f f e c t is in no way d i m i n i s h e d . S i m i l a r l y we can-not condemn the man f o r h i s excess i ve p r i de in h is l e a r n i n g and h is pipowess as a t eache r , f o r such v a n i t i e s are a l l too human and r e l a t i v e l y harmless . I t h ink much of the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of the s a t i r e comes from the r e a l i z a t i o n that t h i s l i k a b l e o l d fel1ow w i th a 11 h is redeeming g races , s t i l l possesses these human weaknesses. Abraham Adams is the v i c t i m of a t h e o r e t i c a l ideal o f conduct that h i s own nature w i l l not suppor t . He is a man of the c l o t h and thus supposedly a man of peace, yet he is c o n s t a n t l y g e t t i n g in to f i g h t s , always ready to defend h i s f r i e n d s or h i s views w i th a f i s t the s i z e o f the knuckle of an ox or a huge c r a b - t r e e s t i c k he c a r r i e d . His theory preaches s t o i c i s m , yet he is the most emotional of men. But then F i e l d i n g ' s heroes we d i s c o v e r are always men of p a s s i o n . Tom, Joseph, Booth, and Adams — in each of them we f i n d tha t wh i l e t h e i r emotions might be at t imes misgu ided, they are at l e a s t men capable o f f e e l i n g . The po in t is r e l e n t l e s s l y brought home to us that weaknesses are f o r g i v a b l e and human, i t is o u t r i g h t 82 hypocr i sy that is no t . There are innumerable s a t i r i c elements that e n r i c h t h i s e p i c of the road. Many of these are dev ices and techniques that F i e l d i n g de-veloped in h i s e a r l y years as a d rama t i s t . The mock-hero ic s i m i l e and the use of e leva ted e p i c language in g e n e r a l , added to the appeal of such works as Tom Thumb and Jonathan W i l d , but they become a source o f pure d e l i g h t in Joseph Andrews. As F i e l d i n g ' s Pre face shows, he was we l l aware of the advantages the t r a d i t i o n of mock-epic held f o r underscor ing those modes of the r i d i c u l o u s that a r i s e from a f f e c t a t i o n . C loak ing the most unhero ic o f f i g u r e s in the garments o f the he ro i c makes t h e i r a f f e c t a t i o n and e s s e n t i a l a b s u r d i t y stand out a l l the more c l e a r l y . As Mack po in t s ou t , F i e l d i n g inc ludes f o r what he c a l l s h i s c l a s s i c a l reader numerous mock-epic jokes - - ranging from Homeric s im-i l e s through the e p i c geneology of Joseph 's cudgel to the h i l a r i o u s t r a v e s t y of Oedipus at the c l o s e - - where the humor i s l a r g e l y at the expense of e p i c forms and the h e r o i c a t t i t u d e toward l i f e . ^ But the language is f u l l y f u n c t i o n a l , we do more than take d e l i g h t in the bur-lesque of he ro i c d i c t i o n . The novel does not stop wh i le we take p leasu re in t h i s added a t t r a c t i o n f o r i t is an i n teg ra l par t of the exposure of the r i d i c u l o u s . When Parson Adams is set upon by the hun te rs ' dogs, Joseph comes Maynard Mack, "Joseph Andrews and Pame la , " F i e l d i n g , A Col 1ect ion  of C r i t i c a l Essays , ed . Ronald P a u l s o n , p. 56. to h i s rescue in a t r u l y h e r o i c manner; No sooner d id Joseph Andrews pe rce i ve the d i s t r e s s of h i s f r i e n d , when f i r s t the q u i c k - s c e n t i n g dogs a t tacked him, than he grasped h is cudgel in h i s r i g h t hand — a cudgel which h i s fa the r had of h i s g rand fa the r , to whom a mighty s t rong man of Kent had given i t . . . . ( I , 270) And on i t goes, w i t h the b a t t l e i t s e l f desc r ibed in e leva ted language s u i t a b l e f o r an ep i c event . The bur lesque turns the s i t u a t i o n in to a humorous a f f a i r s imply through the incongru i t y o f the d e s c r i p t i o n and the p a r t i c i p a n t s themselves. But i t is not Joseph and Parson Adams that are a f f e c t i n g a he ro i c s tance and thus being made v i c t i m s of the s a t i r e , i n s t e a d , they emerge as being t r u l y brave, and i t is the squ i re and h i s companions that appear in a p e t t y , mean l i g h t . F i e l d i n g is p l a y f u l as he e x p l a i n s why he cou ld f i n d no s i m i l e adequate f o r h i s purpose. Joseph Andrews h imse l f becomes a symbol f o r " f r i e n d s h i p , courage ,you th , beauty, s t r e n g t h , and s w i f t n e s s " : Let those t he re fo re that desc r i be l i o n s and t i g e r s , and heroes f i e r c e r than bo th , r a i s e t h e i r poems or p lays w i th the s i m i l e of Joseph Andrews, who is h imse l f above the reach of any s i m i l e . ( I , 271) The s a t i r e is e s s e n t i a l l y good-natured, but the novel is none-t h e l e s s one o f purpose, and t h i s purpose is to expose the van i t y and hypocr i sy in s o c i e t y wh i l e at the same time recommending t h e i r a n t i -t h e t i c a l v i r t u e s — c h a r i t y , c h a s t i t y , and the c l a s s i c a l ideal of a v i r t uous l i f e . ^ The j ou rney ing of F i e l d i n g ' s heroes can be seen B a t t e s t i n , pp. 8 8 - 8 9 . Sk a 11egor ica 1 1 y as a moral p i l g r image from the co r rup t i on of the great c i t y to the r e l a t i v e na tu ra lness and s i m p l i c i t y of the count ry . This same p i l g r image is undergone in reverse in Tom Jones , w i th the f i n a l r e s o l u t i o n being the marr iage of Tom and Sophia and the promise of t h e i r re t i rement to a l i f e of pas to ra l b l i s s on the Western 's e s t a t e . Rural re t i rement w i th a v i r t uous and l o v i n g w i f e was a c l a s s i c a l ideal and the ' reward ' F i e l d i n g prov ided the heroes in a l l h i s n o v e l s . Th is symbol ic use of country and c i t y l i f e as r ep resen ta t i ve of good and e v i l is dramat ized in the Wi lson ep i sode . This gentleman r e l a t e s to Adams and Joseph a s to r y of a youth of i n c r e d i b l e d i s s i p a t i o n . His n a r r a t i v e seems momentar i ly to i n t e r rup t the main stream of the n o v e l , but a second glance revea ls that i t is cen t ra l to the s t o r y i t s e l f as we l l as being a convent iona l ep i c d e v i c e . W i l s o n ' s t a l e is a v a r i a t i o n on a major theme of the n o v e l . It is a t a l e o f a d i s s i p a t e d and thought-l e s s you th , i t is the con fess ion of the l i f e of a man of unb r i d l ed p a s s i o n , but i t is a l s o the t a l e of a man's coming through exper ience to a deeper unders tanding of h imse l f . W i l s o n ' s n a r r a t i v e , and l a t e r , i n Tom Jones , the Man on the H i l l ' s t a l e , revea1 F i e l d i n g ' s a t t i tude towards such expe r i ence . Tom and Booth (Amelia) are men of a s i m i l a r breed — they learn t h e i r lessons a l i t t l e more e a s i l y perhaps, but s t i l l they lea rn p a r t l y through exper ience . Wi lson was by h i s own con fess ion a complete s c o u n d r e l . A f t e r con-t e s t i n g h i s f a t h e r ' s w i l l (on the adv ice of h i s lawyers) he went to London where he soon acqu i red the cha rac te r of a " f i n e gent leman. " 85 The f i r s t requisites, he te l ls us, were "supplied by a ta i lo r , a per i -wig maker, and some few more tradesmen, who deal in furnishing out the human body." Again the sa t i r is t attacks the shallowness of the moral character of such a beaux — just as the principles of Wild's gang were equated to their hats, so here the character of such a rake can be direct ly attributed to his ta i lor and "periwig-maker." What follows is a l is t ing of al l the vices which can be acquired by a young man entering the fast and frivolous London society. However, even in this intensified sa t i r i c narrative, Fielding's humor is almost as predominant as the satire i tse l f . This coupling of the good-humored with the s t r i c t l y sa t i r i c lends the satire added depth. Wilson te l ls his guest of his ini t iat ion into society: The next qual i f icat ions, namely, dancing, fencing, riding the great horse, and music, came into my head, but as they required expense and time, I comforted myself, with regard to dancing, that I had learned a l i t t l e in my youth, and could walk a minuet genteely enough, as to fencing, I thought my good-humour would preserve me from the danger of a quarrel, as to the horse, I hoped it would not be thought of, and for music I imagined I could easily acquire the reputation of i t , for 1 had heard some of my school-fel1ows pretend to knowledge in operas, without being able to sing or play on the f iddle . ( I , 230) The description of the fashionable beau is surely meant to be contemptuous, but Wilson can look back on his own foolish youth with such amused understanding that this becomes the predominant attitude in us, as readers, as well . The passage reveals the sham involved in offering the desired front to society. Fielding's satire is intense but it is also sympathetic, he laughs at the "poor, bare,forked animal," but it is an understanding laugh. Wilson had his intrigues, kept mis-86 t r e s s e s , debauched a young maiden, gambled, f requented the p layhouses , even wrote poet ry and p lays — in te r rup ted by numerous unpleasant v i s i t s to h i s surgeon — and f i n a l l y ran h imse l f hope less l y i n to debt . Rescue came in the shape of H a r r i e t Hear ty , the daughter of the g e n t l e -man to whom he had s o l d h is winn ing l o t t e r y t i c k e t . Wi lson t e l l s how he e v e n t u a l l y marr ied h i s benefact<j>ress and subsequent ly r e t i r e d to a l i f e in the coun t r y , away " f rom a wor ld f u l l of b u s t l e , n o i s e , h a t r e d , envy, and i n g r a t i t u d e , to ease , q u i e t , and l ove " ( l , 254) . The Wi lson ep isode is an i n t e n s i f i e d po r t r aya l of an ideal that F i e l d i n g held f o r t h in a l l h i s w r i t i n g s . W i l s o n ' s i s a l i f e of exper ience crowned w i th i d y l l i c re t i r emen t , an a r r i v a l at the understanding of good through the e x p e r i e n c i n g of e v i l . The serene l i f e t h i s couple shares seems to Adams the modern counterpar t o f l i f e in the golden age. Both Joseph and Parson Adams are ob jec t s of laughter in the n o v e l . The former in h i s i n c r e d i b l e s t r u g g l e to hold onto h is c h a s t i t y , and the l a t t e r in h i s innocence and unconquerable i d e a l i s m , present us w i th coun t l ess ,1aughable adventu res , but i t is hard ly s a t i r i c l augh te r , f o r the element o f contempt is absent . At l eas t we fee l no contempt f o r them. They are r i d i c u l o u s upon o c c a s i o n , o f ten amusing and even s i l l y , but they are never f a l s e or m a l i c i o u s . There is no f a l s e l aye r to s t r i p from them, l eav ing them s h i v e r i n g in t h e i r h y p o c r i s y , f o r they are at a l l t imes s i n c e r e and comp le te l y , admirab ly themselves. Adams and Joseph b r i ng f o r t h our s m i l e s , but never our sneers . They are the key f i g u r e s w i th whom the author c a r r i e s out h i s i n s t r u c t i v e purpose, in t h e i r innocence they reveal the p o s s i b i l i t i e s f o r good as we l l as 87 the many ev idences of e v i l in a d iseased s o c i e t y . When Joseph is set upon by two robbers and beaten and l e f t l y i n g naked in the d i t c h , we note that i t is the p o s t i l i o n who f i r s t t r i e s to get the coachman to s top . Th is same p o s t i l i o n , " a lad who hath s ince been t ranspor ted f o r robbing a henroost " ( I , 65) > is the on ly one to vo lun tee r a garment to cover a s u f f e r i n g f e l l o w c r e a t u r e . T h i s , however, is one of the redeeming fea tu res of the wor ld F i e l d i n g p r e -sents f o r us. The lawyer , the w i t , the prude, the gent leman, and the h e a r t l e s s coachman, are a l l ob jec t s of the s a t i r i s t ' s a t t a c k . They would monopol ize the stage in t h e i r s e l f i s h n e s s and c r u e l t y i f i t were not f o r t h i s one young f e l l o w who possessed more c h a r i t y and k indness than the res t of them put t oge the r . The po in t is not that the poor are be t t e r human beings than the r i c h , but ra ther that goodness can be found in a l l walks o f l i f e . In h i s P r e f a c e , F i e l d i n g acknowledged h.i's r e s p o n s i b i l i t y as censor of the manners, t a s t e s and m o r a l i t y of h i s age. This r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , we n o t i c e d , he f e l t h e a v i l y even in the e a r l i e s t stages of h is w r i t i n g c a r e e r . " In Joseph Andrews the s e l f i s h n e s s of the lawyer , the a v a r i c e of Pe te r Pounce, the hypocr isy of Parson T r u l l i b e r , the l u s t o f Lady Booby, the bad .art of Pamela — a l l are l a i d bare by the kn<i»fe of r i d i -1 2 c u l e . " And these same v i c e s F i e l d i n g had a t tacked unceas ing ly in h i s B a t t e s t i n , op. c i t . , p. 152. p lays and m isce l laneous w r i t i n g s . The ta rge ts are the same, on ly the form has a l t e r e d . F i e l d i n g as s a t i r i s t has changed h is approach, he has broadened i t through the use of the novel to present the complete p i c t u r e of good and e v i l in a l l t h e i r i n t r i c a t e b lend ings . However, he has re ta ined enough emphasis of the s a t i r i c to add a sober note to the laughter of the n o v e l . Tom Jones is F i e l d i n g ' s most e n t e r t a i n i n g n o v e l . It i s a f u l l e r , r i c h e r , l i v e l i e r p roduc t ion than Joseph Andrews. However, in expanding many of the beaut ies of h i s f i r s t comic e p i c there was an unavoidable sub l ima t i on of the s a t i r i c a l e lements . S a t i r e demands a c e r t a i n im-personal tone that is q u i t e the oppos i te to that found in the s to ry of Tom. Joseph Andrews s t re t ched to i t s l i m i t s the r e l a t i o n s h i p be-tween the a l o o f s a t i r i s t and the amiable comic a r t i s t . There is enough of the l ovab le human in Parson Adams to p e r s o n a l i z e the s a t i r e and g ive i t a warmth that s t rengthens i t , wh i l e yet pe rm i t t i ng the work to r e t a i n many of the a l l e g o r i c a l q u a l i t i e s of Jonathan W i l d . But Joseph and Fanny never take on the l i f e f o r us that Tom and Sophia do. iden-t i f i c a t i o n w i th the f i r s t couple is both imposs ib le and undes i red . It is t h i s d i f f i c u l t y we have see ing them as humans in a human s i t u a t i o n that helps i l l u m i n a t e the preposterousness of the moral p re tens ions of Pamela. For Joseph 's a c t i o n s , amusing and amazing as they a r e , are nonethe less mora l l y more sound than those of h i s s i s t e r , Pamela, The cha rac te rs In Joseph Andrews are memorable, but w i th the excep t ion of Parson Adams, they lack the depth that the author g ives t h e i r successors in Tom Jones . Mrs. S l i p s l o p , Mrs. Tow-Wouse, Parson Trul1 i b e r , P e t e r 89 Pounce, Mr. W i l s o n , and even Joseph and Fanny are not p laced under our obse rva t i on in f u l l enough d e t a i l or f o r a long enough per iod to be-come " p e o p l e " in the f u l l e s t sense. We see them as unchanging people f l a shed before us on ly long enough fo r them to become impr inted upon the memory as t ypes . 11 would appear that the sat i r i c elements in Tom Jones are i n -c luded more f o r t h e i r c o n t r i b u t i o n to the comic e f f e c t than fo r c r i t i -c ism per se . The novel has much the same moral purpose as Joseph  Andrews, or r a t h e r , l i k e the e a r l i e r work i t was meant to be i n s t r u c t i v e , but the lesson is not taught as e x p r e s s l y through s a t i r e . F i e l i n g ' s ro le as na r ra to r in Tom Jones is a f a s c i n a t i n g one. His persona or mask as na r ra to r i s that of the s t o r y - t e l l e r s tand ing between the people in h i s t a l e and h i s readers . It i s an o b t r u s i v e p o s i t i o n tha t p laces him in the ro le o f p u b l i c bene fac to r . Th is stance r e c a l l s the dev ice F i e l d i n g used in h i s f a r c e s , that of p resen t i ng a p lay under rehearsa l w i th the p laywr igh t e x p l a i n i n g i t to a l l who w i l l even pretend an i n t e r e s t . In the p lays the scheme becomes a method of r i d i c u l e , w i th the p1aywr igh t -w i th in - the -p1 ay u n i n t e n t i o n a l l y ex-pos ing the a b s u r d i t i e s in both h is own work and the s o c i e t y i t dea ls 1 3 w i t h . However, in the novel there is the b a s i c d i f f e r e n c e that the n o v e l i s t e l abo ra tes on h is own p o s i t i v e b e l i e f s and the s a t i r i c a l Irwin Eh renp re i s , F i e l d i n g ; Tom Jones (London, 1964), p. 8. elements are subord inated to the ro l e of r e i n f o r c i n g these p o s i t i v e b e l i e f s . Rather than having p o s i t i v e i dea ls suggested through i m p l i -c a t i o n , a iming a t an awareness of good brought about by a concen t ra t i on on e v i l (which I see as the p r i n c i p l e behind s a t i r e ) ,F ie1d ing s h i f t s the emphasis to the good i t s e l f . But he does not neg lec t the e v i l , and the s a t i r i c a l e lements , which are o f ten of a comic na tu re , ensure a va r i ed tone in the work. F i e l d i n g can never sound pompous, he never g ives us the monotonous drone of the d i e -ha rd m o r a l i s t , he is too busy laughing at s o c i e t y and at h imse l f . For example, when he s a t i r i z e s the p r o f e s s i o n a l c l a s s e s in Tom Jones , he does more than j u s t t e l l us that a lawyer , f o r example, might be a v a i n , a f f e c t e d a s s , he shows us why we should cons ide r him so . The novel abounds in examples of the ja rgon which is the d i sease of the p re ten t i ous among the p r o f e s s i o n a l c l a s s e s . The p h i l o s o p h i c a l Square and the pa r son i ca l Thwackum ep i tomize the a f f e c t e d types F i e l d i n g sought to r i d i c u l e . P a r t r i d g e , the academic ba rbe r , is cursed w i th the same d i sease — he can s c a r c e l y complete a sentence wi thout i n s e r t i n g some L a t i n , on ly a p o r t i o n of wh ich , the n a r r a t o r e x p l a i n s , he " a p p l i e d p rope r l y enough." In Tom Jones F i e l d i n g has gone f a r beyond the se l f - imposed l i m i t s of the s a t i r i s t , but he has not abandoned the t o o l s of the s a t i r i s t ' s t r a d e . It has been suggested t h a t ; As a s a t i r i s t he is overwhelmingly i n te res ted in a c t i o n s , and h is aim is to d i s t i n g u i s h the good from the e v i l , but , as he lea rns how m is l ead ing not on ly words but even a c t i o n s and consequences can be, he f i n d s i t i n c r e a s i n g l y d i f f i c u l t to judge them except in terms of mot i ves . In s h o r t , he r e j e c t s the s a t i r i s t ' s s imple but commonsensical acceptance of e f f e c t 91 as the c h i e f c r i t e r i o n of v i r t u e in favor of the Shaf tsbury ian b e l i e f that an a c t i o n can be n e i t h e r good nor e v i l in i t s e l f , but on ly as i t s mot ive i s c h a r i t a b l e or s e l f s e e k i n g . ^ In Jonathan Wi ld F i e l d i n g was p o r t r a y i n g e v i l aga ins t a background of good, but in Joseph And rews and more n o t i c e a b l y in Tom Jones , he was p resen t i ng s o c i e t y i t s e l f , a s o c i e t y made up of good and e v i l e lements , each of which predominates upon o c c a s i o n . Tom Jones , the l i k a b l e young hero o f the t a l e , f unc t i ons as a s a t i r i c v e h i c l e much as does Parson Adams in Joseph Andrews. His exper iences in the A l lwo r thy househo ld , on the road, and f i n a l l y in London i t s e l f , never d u l l the glow of innocence and s i n c e r e i t y that is h i s t rade mark. He comes in contac t w i th every conce ivab le type of v i c e and c o r r u p t i o n but is never in fec ted h imse l f . Jones learns through h i s e x p e r i e n c e s , but he does not harden and lose h is i n t r i n s i c k indhear tedness . P h y s i c a l l y he is handsome, b i g , s t r o n g , and hea l thy — l i k e Joseph, and l a t e r , Booth — and f i l l e d w i th the j oy o f l i v i n g . He has h i s share o f a young man's na tu ra l f o o l i s h n e s s , but h i s s i m p l i c i t y , and above a l l h i s s i n c e r i t y , p ro tec t s him from censure , both ours and the s a t i r i s t ' s Tom the boy foreshadows Tom the man. As a boy he 1 ies to p ro tec t the p o s i t i o n of h i s f r i e n d , Black George, the gamekeeper, and he holds s t e a d f a s t l y to h i s l i e under a severe wh ipp ing . To l i e is wrong, but h i s i n t en t i ons are so good that we admire him the more. As a young man he s t e a d f a s t l y re fuses to harm anyone, or to bei ieve another capable P a u l s o n , op. c i t . , p. 9. 92 of per forming an i n t en t i ona l e v i l a c t i o n towards him. The novel i n s i s t s we view even h i s a f f a i r w i th Lady B e l l a s t o n in the l i g h t o f the young man's p r i n c i p l e s . Tom makes i t c l e a r that he cou ld not b r i ng h imse l f to hurt the ag ing Lady B e l l a s t o n (o f f ens i ve breath or n o t ) ; Though Jones saw a l l these discouragements on the one s i d e , he f e l t h i s o b l i g a t i o n s f u l l as s t r o n g l y on the o t h e r , nor d id he l ess p l a i n l y d i s c e r n the ardent pass ion whence those o b l i -ga t ions proceeded, the extreme v i o l e n c e of which i f he f a i l e d to e q u a l , he we l l knew the lady would th ink him u n g r a t e f u l , and, what is worse, he would have thought h imse l f so . He knew the t a c i t c o n s i d e r a t i o n upon which a l l her favours were con-f e r r e d , and as h is n e c e s s i t y ob l i ged him to accept them, so h i s honour, he conc luded , fo rced him to pay the p r i c e . (V, Ik) On the one hand t h i s can be seen as a debasing i nc iden t in which Jones compromises a l l h i s morals s imply f o r convenience. But I t h ink t h i s is u n f a i r to the a u t h o r ' s i n t e n t i o n , i t d i scoun ts the s i n c e r i t y that the t a l e demands we c r e d i t young Tom. He makes a m is take , but i t i s not because of a consc ious in ten t to dece i ve . It must be remembered how h is a f f a i r s stood w i th Sophia at the t ime, the a t t r a c t i o n s Lady B e l l a s t o n possessed , as we l l as her de te rmina t ion — and that Tom d id not have the same armour as Joseph w i th which to defend h imse l f aga ins t such a t t a c k s . Tom is a blend of good and not -so-good c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , o f weakness as we l l as s t r e n g t h . However, the reproach is aimed as much at the s o c i e t y that views and condemns h i s a c t i o n s as i t is a t Tom h i m s e l f , f o r the e v i l l u r ks in t h e i r minds, a l ongs ide the h y p o c r i s y , Tom l i e s , poaches, d r i n k s , q u a r r e l s , f i g h t s , and loves to e x c e s s , but he has the excuse of h i s age fo r almost every f a u l t , and the na tu ra l p rog ress ion of the novel suggests both that he leaves these shortcomings 93 behind him and that he is a be t t e r man fo r having exper ienced such na tu ra l emot ions. Tom is always t rue to h is p r i n c i p l e s , and even h i s adventures w i th women can be defended on the grounds that they are harmless in i n t e n t . His rep ly to N i g h t i n g a l e ' s accusa t i ons c l e a r y i n d i c a t e h is thoughts on the s u b j e c t ; "Lookee , Mr. N i g h t i n g a l e , " sa id Jones, "I am no can t i ng hyp-o c r i t e , nor do I pretend to the g i f t of c h a s t i t y more than my ne ighbours . I have been g u i l t y w i th women, I own i t , but am not consc ious that I have ever in ju red any. Nor would I, to procure p leasure to myse l f , be knowingly the cause of misery to any human be i n g . " (V, 108) Thus wh i l e we can o f ten accuse Tom of imprudence and see him as being a l i t t l e f o o l i s h , j u s t as we found Parson Adams r id ' i cu lous upon many o c c a s i o n s , we can never t h i nk of him as the " c a n t i n g h y p o c r i t e , " the prime ob jec t o f the s a t i r e . With cha rac te rs l i k e Thwackum and Square the author g ives us d e l i g h t f u l s a t i r i c a l p o r t r a i t s . F i e l d i n g balances these two p e r f e c t l y , each emphasiz ing the absu rd i t y of the other by the sheer v i v i d n e s s of con t ras t o f t h e i r views and p e r s o n a l i t i e s ; This gentleman Square and Mr. Thwackum scarce ever met w i t h -out a d i s p u t a t i o n , fo r t h e i r tenets were indeed d i a m e t r i c a l l y oppos i te to each o t h e r . Square held human nature to be the p e r f e c t i o n o f a l l v i r t u e , and that v i c e was a d e v i a t i o n from our na tu re , in the same manner as de formi ty o f body i s . Thwack-um, on the c o n t r a r y , mainta ined that the human mind, s i nce the Fal l „was noth ing but a s i nk of i n i q u i t y , t i l l p u r i f i e d and redeemed by g race . In one po in t on ly they agreed , which was, in a l l t h e i r d i scou rses on m o r a l i t y never to mention the word goodness. The f a v o r i t e phrase of the former was the na tu ra l beauty of v i r t u e , tha t o f the l a t t e r was the d i v i n e power of g race. The former measured a l l a c t i o n s by the u n a l t e r a b l e ru le 3k of r i g h t , and the e te rna l f i t n e s s of t h i n g s ; the l a t t e r decided a l l mat ters by a u t h o r i t y ; but in doing t h i s , he always used the S c r i p t u r e s and t h e i r commentators, as the lawyer doth h i s Coke upon L y t t l e t o n , where the comment i s o f equal a u t h o r i t y w i th the t e x t . ( I l l , 114) The p a i r are l i v i n g examples o f the harmful e f f e c t s o f the m i s a p p l i c a t i o n o f such ideal p h i l o s o p h i e s o r r e l i g i o u s d o c t r i n e s . The t heo r i es in themselves are f i n e , the on ly t r oub le is they do not make t h e i r ho lders be t t e r men. Th is type o f ph i l osophy , F i e l d i n g po in t s ou t , y i e l d s no good to mankind when i t s s o l e man i f es ta t i ons are in i d l e mouth ings; t h i s type of r e l i g i o n must be seen as h y p o c r i t i c a l and s e l f i s h when i t des t roys goodness. The author is a t h i s humorous best in h i s t reatment o f t h i s p a i r of a r c h - h y p o c r i t e s . Thwackum is shown r e v e l l i n g in h i s re l i g i o n ; When I mention r e l i g i o n I mean the C h r i s t i a n r e l i g i o n ; and not on ly the C h r i s t i a n r e l i g i o n , but the P ro tes tan t r e l i g i o n ; and not on ly the P ro tes tan t r e l i g i o n , but the Church o f England. And when I mention honour, I mean that mode o f D iv ine grace which is not on l y c o n s i s t e n t w i t h , but dependent upon t h i s r e l i g i o n , and is c o n s i s t e n t w i th and dependent upon no o t h e r . ( I l l , 115) It is the same type of pigheadness and c h o p - l o g i c that the s a t i r i s t a t tacked in h i s "Essay on No th ing " and "Some PAPERS Proper to be Read before the R 1 S o c i e t y , " w i th the d i f f e r e n c e that these cha rac te rs we come to know and understand and consequent ly share a deeper involvement w i t h . Baner j i po in t s out that one conspicuous fea tu re o f F i e l d i n g ' s s a t i r e is that i t i s on l y in excep t iona l cases that i t makes ob jec t s 95 a b s o l u t e l y contempt ib le and od ious . The po r t r aya l o f B l i f i l is one of these " e x c e p t i o n a l c a s e s . " He is the most d e s p i c a b l e c rea tu re in the n o v e l ; h i s every move is revea led to be the r e s u l t o f s e l f i s h cunning and designed towards f u r t h e r i n g h i s own m a l i c i o u s ends. Even as a c h i l d B l i f i l is seen as a c a l c u l a t i n g v i l l a i n . When out o f mean-ness and j e a l o u s y he l e t a b i r d tha t Tom had g iven Sophia escape, he had a l l the c o r r e c t answers to j u s t i f y h i s a c t i o n s . He t e l l s the adu l t s in the group that he cou ld not help g i v i n g the c rea tu re i t s l i b e r t y ; "I always thought there was something very c rue l in c o n f i n i n g a n y t h i n g , " he says ( I I I , 151). They can judge on ly from wi thout and must t he re fo re f i n d h i s a c t i o n p ra i sewor thy , but we have the advantage of knowing h i s t rue mot ive , and see him f o r the v i c i o u s l i a r he i s . B l i f i l i s the b l ackes t o f h y p o c r i t e s , and one on whom the author un-leashes tremendous sco rn . As in Joseph Andrews, in t h i s novel we see a s o c i e t y that i s in many ways c o r r u p t ; and t h i s c o r r u p t i o n is perhaps most ev iden t in the scenes d e p i c t i n g l i f e in the c a p i t a l . But F i e l d i n g a l s o uses a s l i g h t l y d i f f e r e n t approach in Tom Jones . Here, ra ther than making count ry r e -t i rement appear l e s s cor rup t than the town l i f e , he has h is country f o l k 16 expose the Londoners not by c o n t r a s t , but by emu la t i on . Every con-c e i v a b l e v i c e or i n t r i g u e u s u a l l y a s s o c i a t e d w i th the c i t y f i n d s i t s ^ H. K. B a n e r j i , Henry F i e l d i n g , His L i f e and Works (Oxford , 1929), p. 205. 16 Ehrenp re i s , op. c i t . , p. 31. 96 counterpar t in a country s e t t i n g . Even B l i f i l , the v i l e s t o f them a l l , cannot a t t a c h any blame to c i t y i n f l u e n c e s , f o r he has not had so much as a c i t y educa t i on . F i e l d i n g ' s comment on the van i t y o f Mo l l y Seagrim as she parades to church in Soph ia ' s c a s t - o f f d ress c l e a r l y i l l u s t r a t e s t h i s i dea ; The great are deceived i f they imagine they have app rop r ia ted ambi t ion and van i t y to themselves. These noble q u a l i t i e s f l o u r i s h as no tab ly in a country church and churchyard as in the drawing-room or in the c l o s e t . Schemes have indeed been l a i d in the ves t r y which would hard ly d i sg race the conc lave . Here is a m i n i s t r y , and here is an o p p o s i t i o n . Here a re p l o t s and c i r cumven t i ons , p a r t i e s and f a c t i o n s , equal to those which are to be found in c o u r t s . Nor a re the women here less p r a c t i s e d in the h ighest femin ine a r t s than t h e i r f a i r supe r i o r s in q u a l i t y and f o r t une . Here are prudes and coque t tes . Here are d r e s s i n g and o g l i n g , f a l s e h o o d , envy, m a l i c e , s c a n d a l ; in s h o r t , eve ry th i ng which is common to the most sp lend id assembly or p o l i t e s t c i r c l e . Let those of high l i f e , t h e r e f o r e , no longer desp ise the i g -norance of t h e i r i n f e r i o r s , nor the vu lgar any longer r a i l a t the v i c e s of t h e i r b e t t e r s . ( I l l , 169) There is the f e e l i n g in the novel that the inhab i tan ts of the country do have an advantage over those o f the c i t y , but the suggest ion seems to be that i t is through n o v i r t u e of t h e i r own. However, those who are aware of the advantages of country l i f e , people l i k e A l l w o r t h y , and W i l s o n , are ab le to p r a c t i c e a benevolence in t h i s ru ra l s e t t i n g that would be imposs ib le in the c i t y . It is e a s i e r to l i v e " the good l i f e " in the coun t ry , away from the e v i l s o f the town, f o r i t is man that is the e v i l , and the crowded, b u s t l i n g c o n d i t i o n s of the c i t y breed c o r r u p t i o n . There i s more c r i t i c i s m of s o c i e t y invo lved in the novel than is u s u a l l y supposed. But wh i l e the s a t i r e i s o f ten sharp , there is the tendency to fo rge t F i e l d i n g the s a t i r i s t in the presence of F i e l d i n g the humor is t . The humor o v e r r i d e s the s a t i r e in such ins tances a s , f o r example, Tom's d i scove ry o f the ph i losopher Square "among o ther female u t e n s i l s " in Mo l l y Seagr im's c l o s e t . It is a v i v i d p i c t u r e we get o f Square squa t t i ng in r i d i c u l o u s f a s h i o n , one of M o l l y ' s n igh tcaps on h is head, and h i s two large eyes s t a r i n g d i r e c t l y at Jones . We almost fo rge t in the laughter o f the moment the se r i ous i m p l i c a t i o n s invo lved in Tom's sudden u n v e i l i n g o f h i s t e a c h e r ' s h y p o c r i s y . In Tom Jones F i e l d i n g ' s mock-epic d i c t i o n reaches i t s g rea tes t h e i g h t s . The b a t t l e scenes , i n v o c a t i o n s , and he ro i c s i m i l e s have an exuberance tha t surpasses any th ing in the e a r l i e r works. M o l l y ' s b a t t l e in the churchyard (Bk IV, ch 8 ) , the f i s t f i g h t i n v o l v i n g Tom, Thwackum, Western and B l i f i l (Bk V, chs 10-12) , and the s t r u g g l e at the inn at Upton (Bk IX, ch 3) > prov ide o p p o r t u n i t i e s fo r the author to e x e r c i s e h i s t a l e n t s f o r t h i s type of bur lesque d i c t i o n to the f u l l e s t . But the bur lesque of the h e r o i c t r a d i t i o n i s c a r r i e d on p r i m a r i l y f o r the sake o f the comedy i t p r o v i d e s . These scenes add l i f e and c o l o u r , and the p leasure is in the language i t s e l f more than in any s a t i r i c i m p l i c a t i o n s there might be. The h e r o i c s i m i l e s though, are more s u b t l y blended w i th the n a r r a t i v e than are the mock-epic b a t t l i For example, e a r l y in the novel Mrs. W i l k i n s is desc r ibed as a k i t e ; Not o therw ise than when a k i t e , tremendous b i r d , i s beheld by the fea thered genera t ion soar ing a l o f t , and hover ing over t h e i r heads, the amorous dove, and every innocent l i t t l e b i r d , spread wide the a la rm, and f l y t remb l ing to t h e i r h i d i n g - p l a c e s . He proud ly beats the a i r , consc ious of h i s d i g n i t y , and medi ta tes 98 intended m i s c h i e f . F i e l d i n g goes on to e x p l a i n h i s s i m i l e ; It is my i n t e n t i o n , t h e r e f o r e , to s i g n i f y , t h a t , as i t is the nature of a k i t e to devour l i t t l e b i r d s , so i t is the nature of such persons as Mrs. W i l k i n s to i n s u l t and t y r a n n i z e over l i t t l e peop le . This being indeed the means which they use to recompense to themselves t h e i r extreme s e r v i l i t y and condescen-s ion to t h e i r s u p e r i o r s ; f o r noth ing can be more reasonable than that s l aves and f l a t t e r e r s should exact the same taxes on a l l below them, which they themselves pay to a l l above them. ( I N , 32) Now t h i s idea is in essence l i t t l e d i f f e r e n t from tha t expressed in the d i s s e r t a t i o n concern ing high people and low people in Joseph  Andrews. Depending upon one ' s p o s i t i o n in the s o c i a l o r d e r , one must choose whether " t o be a great man a t s i x in the morn ing, or at two in the a f t e rnoon " ( l , 181). The s a t i r i s t b r ings out the e s s e n t i a l p e t t i -ness of human nature as he desc r i bes a b a s i c t r u t h of our s o c i a l s t r u c t u r e . In Joseph Andrews, and to a g rea te r ex ten t in Tom Jones , we see F i e l d i n g the m o r a l i s t emerging and the s a t i r i s t f ad ing f u r t h e r and f u r t h e r into the background. The term m o r a l i s t seems somehow to have the wrong connota t ion to be a p p l i e d to the author o f these two comic n o v e l s , but F i e l d i n g ' s purpose was to i n s t r u c t as we l l as to e n t e r t a i n . It is a f i n e l i n e 1 am drawing between s a t i r i s t and m o r a l i s t ; by the former I mean the a r t i s t concerned p r i m a r i l y w i th the exposure of v i c e , w i th the p resen ta t i on of the e v i l in s o c i e t y ; whereas w i th the l a t t e r , the m o r a l i s t , I r e f e r to the a r t i s t in ten t upon d e p i c t i n g a way of l i f e as an a l t e r n a t i v e . The l a t t e r is one who sees the e v i l but a l s o the p o s s i b i l i t i e s o f good in s o c i e t y and desc r i bes both . In Tom Jones 99 F i e l d i n g s t ruck a happy balance between s a t i r i s t and m o r a l i s t that was not to be reproduced in Amel i a , h i s f i n a l n o v e l . There is a darken ing of tone in Ame1 ia. i t suggests an a n g r i e r F i e l d i n g , one whose years as p o l i c e - c o u r t mag is t ra te of f i r s t Bow S t r e e t , and then the whole o f the County of Midd lesex,were o b v i o u s l y having t h e i r e f f e c t s . One c r i t i c , Andrew Wr igh t , f e e l s that in the novel " t he s a -t i r i c mode becomes open and raw; the f e s t i v e i n t en t i on of the author o f Joseph And rews and Tom Jones has given way to the s e v e r i t i e s of angry hope, and angry d e s p a i r . " ^ It is more a case of the s a t i r i s t g i v i n g way comple te ly to the m o r a l i s t . The work represents an inex-o rab le exposure of the wrongs in s o c i e t y . There i s l i t t l e ev idence of comic enjoyment, ra ther than the absurd and r i d i c u l o u s we are shown e v i l in i t s most sombre tones. There is no sudden exposure of sham and hypocr i sy that d i s s o l v e s the s a t i r i c t a rge t in r i d i c u l e . The v i c t i m is d r i ven ahead o f the hunter l i k e a l i o n before the beaters u n t i l there i s s imply no p lace l e f t to h ide . The hunter is r e l e n t l e s s , the e v i l is exposed, but the spor t of s a t i r e is l a c k i n g . F i e l d i n g is in ten t upon d e s c r i b i n g moral wrongs in h i s s o c i e t y but not upon s a -t i r i z i n g those wrongs. Amel ia is c h a r a c t e r i z e d by a sentimenta1 ism q u i t e f o re i gn to the a u t h o r ' s e a r l i e r works. Never before had he so indulged in emot iona l ism and melodrama. F i e l d i n g ' s p reoccupat ion wi th Booth 's unrewarded mer i t and w i th the general i n d i f f e r e n c e of the Andrew Wr igh t , Henry F i e l d i n g , Mask and Feas t , (London, 1965), P. 173. 100 a r i s t o c r a c y in t h e i r t reatment of the lower c l a s s e s is expressed in gloomy tones. S a t i r e has been rep laced by sour sent iment . F i e l d i n g laments these wrongs in dour f a s h i o n , but he does not employ s a t i r e to lash out a t the e v i l . Booth 's weaknesses and h i s own c o n v i c t i o n s that f a t e had d e a l t too harsh ly w i th him, fo r example, would them-se l ves have been ob jec t s o f s a t i r i c a t t a c k in the e a r l i e r F i e l d i n g . Booth 's weaknesses are f o r g i v a b l e perhaps, but not so h is own i n s i s t -ence that he should be p i t i e d ra ther than a r ra igned because of h i s great personal s u f f e r i n g . The novel is f i l l e d w i th the melodrama, the sudden i n e x p l i c a b l e changes in c h a r a c t e r , and the e x t r a o r d i n a r y co inc idences that F i e l d i n g s a t i r i z e d in h i s p l a y s . Booth 's mi racu lous convers ion a f t e r reading the sermons of Dr. Barrow dur ing h i s l a s t confinement is as unexpected and unconv inc ing as any of the f i f t h - a c t r e v e r s a l s of cha rac te r which the author so e f f e c t i v e l y mocks in h i s " chap te r concern ing the mar-v e l l o u s " in Tom Jones. It is a change that ins tead of be ing d ramat i -c a l l y rendered is seemingly made f o r the sake o f conven ience. The p l o t requ i res t h i s change in Booth, unconv inc ing as i t may be. S i m i -l a r l y , the co inc idence that br ings the supposedly dy ing Robinson in to the same house w i th Booth so that he may c o n f e s s , and the subsequent r e s t o r a t i o n o f A m e l i a ' s l egacy , is the same l as t -m inu te tu rn of fo r tune tha t F i e l d i n g s a t i r ized w i th the end ing o f The A u t h o r ' s Farce when Luck less was revealed to be a p r i n c e and a l l the cha rac te rs on stage to be in some way connected w i th royal f a m i l i e s . In Ame1 i a , F i e l d i n g has a l l but abandoned s a t i r e as a weapon to use aga ins t the e v i l he 101 sees in the s o c i e t y around him. In Tom Jones we f i n d the author remark ing: " In my humble o p i n i o n , the t rue c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of the present beau monde i s ra ther f o l l y than v i c e , and the on ly e p i t h e t which i t deserves is tha t o f f r i v o l o u s . " (Bk x i v , ch I) How d i f f e r e n t in tone is t h i s from the remarks he makes in h i s d e d i c a t i o n to Ralph A l l e n which pre faces Amel i a , in which he says h i s des ign is " t o promote the cause of v i r t u e , and to expose some of the most g l a r i n g e v i l s , as wel l p u b l i c as p r i v a t e , which at present i n f e s t the c o u n t r y . " How much darker and more se r i ous the i n -t en t . The l i v e l y s a t i r e of the e a r l i e r works has been rep laced by the sent imenta l and the m o r a l i s t i c . Concl us ion With the p r i v i l e g e of being ab le to look at the a u t h o r ' s complete works, we have the advantage of see ing what a na tura l change i t was in Henry F i e l d i n g from s a t i r i s t to n o v e l i s t . Throughout h i s l i t e r a r y ca ree r he was compel led to w r i t e w i th i n s t r u c t i o n in mind. As a d ramat i s t t h i s i n s t r u c t i v e bent took the form of the s a t i r e o f h i s f a r c e s and bur lesques through which he po in ted out the c o r r u p t i o n in contemporary p o l i t i c s , the degeneracy of the l i t e r a r y standards and t as tes of the age, and the general d iseased s ta te of h i s s o c i e t y ' s mora ls . A f t e r the L i c e n s i n g Act ended h i s dramat ic ca reer he cont inued t h i s s a t i r i c ve in in h i s p rose , assuming the r o l e o f Augustan s a t i r i s t upon many occas ions and revea l i ng an admirab le competence in w r i t i n g s a t i r e of a S w i f t i a n na tu re . The Mi see 11 an i e s , and Jonathan Wi ld in p a r t i c u l a r , represent a c l imax to t h i s mode o f w r i t i n g . Shame1 a then can be seen as a new d i r e c t i o n in h i s work, the beginn ing of a new form of s a t i r e . Th is parody of R i cha rdson ' s novel i s p r i m a r i l y l i t -103 era ry s a t i r e , " f i c t i o n laughing at f i c t i o n , " but the bur lesque was to lead him towards a complete ly new k ind o f E n g l i s h n o v e l . Joseph Andrews was a c o n t i n u a t i o n o f the a t t ack on R i cha rdson , but i t was a deeper, s u b t l e r and f u r t h e r - r e a c h i n g a t t a c k . More than a comment on l i t e r a r y s t y l e or even f a l s e p remises , i t a t tacked R i cha rdson ' s whole concept o f l i f e as i t appeared in h i s n o v e l . The r e s u l t was a work of a r t and m o r a l i t y , a work wh ich , f o r a l l i t s uproar ious humour, is u l t i m a t e l y a moral book. Tom Jones is the next stage al ong t h i s pa th , but at every step the s a t i r i c a l elements fade f u r t h e r in to the background in r e l a t i o n to the moral over tones of the work. There is s t i l l the impl ied c r i t i -c ism of the type of novel R ichardson was w r i t i n g , s t i l l the mock-epic dev ices used to emphasize the absu rd i t y of man's p r e t e n s i o n s , but there is o f f e r e d so much more as w e l l . In Tom Jones the n o v e l i s t is concerned more w i th p o i n t i n g out the t o t a l s t r u c t u r e of s o c i e t y than he is w i th d e p i c t i n g the e v i l s in i t . The element o f exposure is p resen t , but the emphasis has s h i f t e d from the negat ive to a p o s i t i v e p o r t r a y a l , one in which the good elements win out over the e v i l . The s a t i r e is imbedded deeply in the l a r g e r f unc t i on of the n o v e l i s t which is to w r i t e an e n t e r t a i n i n g novel that is at the same time mora l l y i n s t r u c t i v e . There is the same exposure of v i c e , c o r r u p t i o n , m a l i c e , and p r i de on Maurice Johnson, F i e l d i n g ' s A r t o f Ficttnon ( P h i l a d e l p h i a , 1961), p.171. 104 every s o c i a l l eve l and in both country and c i t y s e t t i n g s , but the s a t i r e e x i s t s fo r what i t c o n t r i b u t e s to the e s s e n t i a l human comedy that is Tom Jones. With Shamela, then, F i e l d i n g embarked on a path that was to see him g r a d u a l l y change from s a t i r i s t to the m o r a l i s t author o f Ame l i a . Joseph Andrews and Tom Jones , however, h i s mock-epics of the road, represent a d e l i g h t f u l b lend ing of s a t i r i s t and m o r a l i s t . In these works we can app rec ia te the s i n c e r e m o r a l i t y that lay behind h i s f i c t i o n wh i l e a t the same time enjoy the b e n e f i t s of h i s l i v e l y , o f ten p l a y f u l , s a t i r i c na tu re . Selec ted B ib l iography B a n e r j i , H. K. Henry F i e l d i n g , His L i f e and Works. Ox fo rd , 1929. Bateson, F.W. E n g l i s h Comic Drama 1700-1750. Ox fo rd , 1929. B a t t e s t i n , Mar t in C. The Moral Bas is of F i e l d i n g ' s A r t . A Study o f  Joseph Andrews. Wesleyan U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1959. Booth, Wayne C. The Rhe to r i c of F i c t i o n . U n i v e r s i t y of Chicago P r e s s , 1961. Bu t t , John. F i e l d i n g ( "Wr i te rs and The i r Works, No. 57.") London, 1954. Co ley , W i l l i a m B. "The Background of F i e l d i n g ' s Laugh te r . " ELH, XXVI (1959), 229-52. C r o s s , Wi lbur L. The H is to ry of Henry F i e l d i n g . 3 v o l s . New Haven, 1918. Digeon, A u r e l i e n . The Novels of F i e l d i n g . London, 1925, t r . of Les Romans de F i e l d i n g (Par ish 1923)• Dyson, A . E . " S a t i r i c and Comic Theory in R e l a t i o n to F i e l d i n g . " MLQ_, XVI I I (1957) , 225-237. E h r e n p r e i s , I r v i n . F i e l d i n g ; Tom Jones. London, 1964. F i e l d i n g , Henry. The Complete Works o f Henry F i e l d i n g , E s q . , ed . W. E. Henley and o t h e r s . 16 v o l s . , London, 1902. . The Works of Henry F i e l d i n g . New York, 1899. Ford , B o r i s , ed . From Dryden to Johnson. (Volume 4 of the P e l i c a n Guide to E n g l i s h L i t e r a t u r e ) . Penguin Books, 1957-George, M. Dorothy. England in T r a n s i t i o n . Penguin Books, 1931. Goggin, L. P. "Development o f Techniques in F i e l d i n g ' s Comedies." PMLA, LXVII (1952), 769-781. . " F i e l d i n g ' s The Masquerade." PQ_, XXXVI (1957), 475-487. Hutchens, E leanor N. Irony in Tom Jones. U n i v e r s i t y of Alabama P r e s s , 1965. I r v i n g , W i l l i a m Henry. John Gay; Favour i te of the Wits New York,1962. I rw in , W i l l i a m Rober t . The Making of Jonathan W i l d . Columbia U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 19^1. . " S a t i r e and Comedy in the Works o f Henry F i e l d i n g . " ELH, XI I (1946), 168-188. Johnson, Maur ice . F i e l d i n g ' s A r t of F i c t i o n . P h i l a d e l p h i a , 1961. Jones , B. M. Henry F i e l d i n g . N o v e l i s t and M a g i s t r a t e . London, 1933. L o f t i s , John. Comedy and Soc ie ty from Congreve to F i e l d i n g . Stanford U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1959. Mack, Maynard. "The Muse of S a t i r e . " Yale Review, XL I (1950, 88-90. M i d d l e l t o n Murry, John. " In Defense of F i e l d i n g , " Unprofess ional  Essays . London, 1956. 9-52. M i l l e r , Henry K. Essays on F i e l d i n g ' s M i s c e l l a n i e s . P r i n c e t o n U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1961. N i c h o l s , C. W. " F i e l d i n g ' s S a t i r e on Pantomine. " PMLA, XLVI (193 0, 1107-12. . " S o c i a l S a t i r e in F i e l d i n g ' s Pasqu i n and The H i s t o r i c a l R e g i s t e r . " PQ, I I I (1924), 309-317. P a u l s o n , Rona ld , ed . F i e l d i n g , A C o l l e c t i o n o f C r i t i c a l Essays . P r e n t i c e - H a l l , I n c . , 1962. P i n k u s , P h i l i p . " S a t i r e and St . George. " Queen's Q u a r t e r l y , LXX (1963), 30-49. Pope, A lexander . Twickenham e d i t i o n . The Poems of A lexander Pope, ed. John But t . London, 1939-. E p i s t l e s to Several Persons (Moral Essays) , ed . F. W. Bateson. London, 1951. Rober tson , O l i v i a . " F i e l d i n g as S a t i r i s t . " Contemporary Review, No. 1034 (1952), 120-124. Sacks, Sheldon. F i c t i o n and the Shape of B e l i e f . Berke ley and Los Ange les , 1964. Sherburn, George. " F i e l d i n g ' s Soc ia l Ou t l ook . " PO., XXXV (1956), 1-23. S w i f t , Jonathan. The Prose Works o f Jonathan S w i f t , ed . Temple Sco t t . London, 1905. Thornbury, E. M. Henry F i e l d i n g ' s Theory o f the Comic Prose E p i c . U n i v e r s i t y o f Wiscons in Stud ies in Language and L i t e r a t u r e , No.30; Madison, 1931. Watt, Ian. " F i e l d i n g and the Ep ic Theory of the N o v e l , " in The R ise of the Nove l ; Stud ies in Defoe, R ichardson and  F i e l d i n g . U n i v e r s i t y o f C a l i f o r n i a P r e s s , 1957. W e l l s , J . E. " F i e l d i n g ' s P o l i t i c a l Purpose in Jonathan W i l d . " PMLA, XXVI I I (1913), 1-55. W i l l e y , B a s i l . The E ighteenth Century Background. Boston, 1940. Wrigh t , Andrew. Henry F i e l d i n g . Mask and Feas t . London, 1965. 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0104646/manifest

Comment

Related Items