Title The Order Restored: A Study of Tom Jones

Author(s) Kimura, Hidetoshi

Citation 沖縄短大論叢 = OKINAWA TANDAI RONSO, 4(1): 35-64

Issue Date 1989-03-31

URL http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12001/10626

Rights 沖縄大学短期大学部

The Order Restored: A Study of Tom Jones

Hidetoshi Kimura

1

When Tobias George Smollett, who was regarded as Henry

Fielding's great rival in the contemporary literary scene, wrote The

Adventures of Roderick Random in 1748, he followed most intention­

ally the picaresque tradition of Cervantes and Lesage. 1 Fielding

also derived inspiration from Cervantes for his novels from Joseph

Andrews ( 1742) onwards. Both writers used the picaresque form

to realise their literary ambitions and thus further the possibility

in the prose fiction. Although Smollett and Fielding were much

different in their literary attitudes and views of the world, their

common standpoint was laid on the negation of romance of chiv­

alry and court romance. Here is an example of Fielding's ::severe

criticisms at romance:

As truth distinguishes our writings from those idle ro­

mances which are filled with monsters, the productions,

not of nature, but of distempered brains; and which h!lve

been therefore recommended by an eminent critic to the

sole use of the pastry-cook: So, on the other hand, we would

avoid any resemblance to that kind of history which a cel­

ebrated poet seems to think is no less calculated for the

emolument of the brewer, as the reading it should be

always attended with a tankard of good ale. 2

Fielding's literary ambition, therefore, made him call The history

of Tom Jones, a Foundling ( 1749) "a new province of writing "

-35-

( ll, 1), and his negation of romance made him call" a history,"

by which he means a realistic portrayal of human nature and con­

temporary society at the time. To that purpose, at least in part,

Fielding modelled his novel upon the tradition of Cervantes.

Whether Tom Jones is a picaresque novel or not has been ar­

gued by many critics. Frank Chandler, for example, remarks:" "Tom

Jones "' indeed,/ though it could scarcely have come into being with­

out picaresque predecessors, transcends them all, and cannot itself

be ranked with the literature of , roguery· ... " 3 Those who take

quite a strict view of the picaresque novel seem to be of the same

opinion as Chandler, but we should note that the picaresque is a

literary mode, whereby an author conveys his commentary on var­

ious aspects of society, human nature, religion, philosophy or even

on the novel proper, through the realistic and comic depiction of

the protagonist's learning process, or education. Learning or educa­

tion is one of the most essential factors and it is achieved by the

hero's various experience. The form varies according to the authors

design; though often it takes the form of the hero's adventures or

wanderings on the road, the emphasis is laid upon his experience,

and thus there is a wide variety of forms in delineating the hero's

experiences. The service to various masters, which is one of Chan­

dler's central definitions of the picaresque novel, is merely one form

of the hero's learning process; and though the word "picaro" means

a rogue in Spanish, the subject of experience need not necessarily

be a rogue (of course, a rogue as the hero of a picaresque novel

must learn various techniques of robbery or the use of the lie). The

essential condition of the picaresque hero is his vitality and quick

response to the outer world, which enable him to become a pow­

erful vehicle of his creator's moral and satirical intention. In this

-36-

light, Tom Jones is righ~ly placed in the tradition of the picaresque

noveL

My intention in this paper is to examine how Fielding con­

tributed to the rise of the novel, through tracing char:ges and devel­

opment of the picaresque form which he produced in the work of

Tom Jones.

2

The plot of Tom Jones has been highly praised almost unani­

mously. Here is the famous remark of Samuel Coleridge: "Upon my

word I think the Oedipus Tyrannus, the Alchemist, and Tom Jones, the

three most perfect plots ever planned." 4 And Tom Jones has been­

likened to the most complete architecture. It is certain that the

novel's eighteen books are neatly divided into three groups of six

books which deal with Tom's growth in the estate of All worthy in

Somersetshire, Tom's wanderings in the low level of society, and

the city life in London respectively. And almost all incidents in the

novel are deliberately arranged leading to the denouement. In this

point Tom Jones is largely different from the traditional picaresque

novel, which consists of various episodes, and in which the only

element that unites its loose structure is the picaro's presence in all

of the action.

As many critics have remarked,. the secret of the hero's birth

is one of the controlling factors of the plot. Every major episode

and incident is basically related to the secret. In his boyhood, Tom

is a solitary figure because of his ignominious birth. Although All­

worthy is his protector, his excessively virtuous figure makes him

a somewhat difficult man to approach, and thus he cannot be a gen­

uine substitute for Tom's father. Bridget All worthy, who turns out

-37-

to be Tom's true mother in the final book, must hide her most crucial

secret and thus cannot show her affection fully to Tom; besides•;

she gets married to Captain Blifil soon after her delivery of Tom

and has another child, little Blifil, one year later. And as Captain

Blifil sees every penny spent on. Tom as a decrease in his own

wealth, his hatred towards Tom grows. Although after the discov­

ery of Tom in Allworthy's room in the thind chapter of Book I we

are not told anything about the course of his growth until the nar­

rator reintroduces us to him at about fourteen years old, in the be­

ginning of Book ill, we may surmise that though Toms surroundings

as a child are materially comfortable, his psychological situation is

a little complicated.

Then we are told that Tom is far from good:

The lad ( Tom ) having, from his earliest years, discov­

ered a propensity to many vices, and especially to one,

which hath as direct tendency as any other to that fate

(to be hanged), which we have just now observed to

have been prophetically denounced against him. He had

been already convicted of three robberies, viz. of robbing

an orchard, of stealing a duck out of a farmers yard, and

of picking Master Blifil 's pocket of a ball.

c m, 2 )

Tom is, therefore, " universally disliked " in Allworthy's home, and

his only friend is the gamekeeper Black George (ill , 2 ) . Thus he

is introduced as a wild boy, who ignores the notion of property

and has an enthusiasm for hunting. The narrator tells us that

"Jones had naturally violent animal spirits: ... " ( V, 9 ). In this

light, as Arnold Kettle suggests, Tom has the image of " the

-38-

noble savage .•. a personage who becomes in time ... the I' natural

man' of Rousseau and the Romantics." 5

This tendency of Tom leads him to be victimized by two tu­

tors, Thwackum and Square. While young Blifil is diligent in his

lessons and shows his calculated respect for the tutors, Tom does

not show his outward respect for them and is " altogether as un­

mindful both of his master's precepts and example /" ( m, 5 ) . Be­

sides, Tom's status· as a foundling does not restrain parson

Thwackum from giving him floggings repeatedly.

Another crucial point in the plot is also caused by the secret

of Tom's parentage: Blifil 's carefully calculated intrigue for Toms

expulsion from Allworthy's estate. While Allworthy is· seriously ill_

with a fever, Blifil receives some urgent news from the attorney

Dowling in place of him: the news that his .mother has died of

gout on the road home from Salisbury. Though we are not told

until the closing book that Blifil also receives his mothers letterto

Allworthy, in which she has confessed that she is the real mother

of Tom, he knows instantly the danger of losing his place as an

heir to Allworthy's estate. He, therefore, not only hides the letter

from Allworthy, but prepares a vicious plan. He cat"efully seeks

an opportunity for Tom's ruin, :so that' lie at the most suitaple

time informs All worthy of Tom's " drunkenness and debauchery "

on the day when All worthy passed out of danger. of death from a

fever, and of the fight between Tom and Thwackum and himself,

which makes All worthy decide to banish Tom (VI, 10 ) .

Finally, the key to the denouement is also the disclosure of the

secret of Tom's birth. It is essential that Tom is really Bridget's

child, i.e, Allworthy's nephew: otherwise, if Tom is vindicated

from the imputation, he could never marry Sophia, due to Squire

-39-

Western's deep-rooted desire to marry his daughter to a man of

the same class_ Although Tom is still a bastard. the fact that he

is a squire's nephew is completely different from his former status

as a fou·ndling under the protection of a squire.6 In this light. it

can be said that the final resolution of the novel is made perfect.

at least in Fielding's point of view. by Tom's real birth. We may

see that here lies Fielding's strong sense of order. and his es­

sentially conservative view of society and people. In this sense,

Ian Watt's following remark is suggestive:

This class fixity is an essential part of Tom Jones. Tom

may think it unfortunate that, as a foundling of presumed

low ancestry, he cannot marry Sophia; but he does not

question the propriety of the assumption on which their

. . d d 7 separation Is ecree .

In this point. Arnold Kettle's following remark is somewhat mis­

leading: " Tom and Sophia, like Clarissa. are rebels. revolting

against the respectably accepted domestic standards of eighteenth­

century society. " 8 It is against hypocricy and selfishness, not

against squirarchy itself that Tom revolts. We are told that Tom

"said. he believed there was no rule in the world capable of mak­

ing such a man as his father, (for so Mr. Allworthy suffered

himself to be called. )"'. refuting Square's " the rule of right "

( ill. 5 ) . Needless to say, Allworthy is the ideal man of squirarchy

and the embodiment of Tom's ideal view of man. Though it is

certain that Sophia revolts against the prevailing notion of mar­

riage of the genteel society and paternal authority, her revolt is

motivated by her love for Tom and her insight into Blifil's true

-40-

nature under his mask of virtue and gentility. She does not deny

the basic motive of her father, and thus after ·the discovery of

Tom's parentage, though she shows some hesitation about Tom's

suit, Squire Western's intervention in their meeting instantly

leads to their reconciliation ( X VJl, 12 ). 9

Another important factor in terms of the plot is misunderstand­

ing among the characters, which sets the main elements of the

plot in motion. The most important misunderstanding is that of

Allworthy's about the natures of Blifil and Tom, which eventually

causes Tom 's· expulsion from the Paradise, All worthy's estate.

Soon after this Tom's misunderstanding of Black George does not

allow him to suspect that the man has stolen the wallet Allworthy

gave him. Thus he is forced to live on his own and wander in low

life.

And Partridge, who is a Sancho-like companion in Toms k'av­

el and who is a comic device, is also important in causing v&ri­

ous misunderstandings: his garrulity is the main source of causing

Sophia's misunderstanding of Tom. The narrator comments ironic­

ally on the character of Partridge:

To give the best natured tum we can do to his ( Par­

tridge's ) disposition, he was a very honest man; for as

he was the most inquisitive of mortals, and eternally

prying into the secrets of others; so he very faithfully

paid them by communicating, in return, every thing

within his knowl~dge. ( X , 5 )

This tendency of Partridge is fully displayed in the Upton episode.

First, he misunderstands Tom's condition: he be lives that Tom's

-41-

real father is Allworthy, and Tom's journey is only a little whim.

Thus he refers to Tom as " the heir to Allworthy " in the pres­

ence of all at the inn ( lX, 5 ) . Therefore, when Sophia and her

maid Honour arrive at the inn late that night, Honour is told by

the landlady that Tom stays there ( X , 4 ) . Informed of this, So­

phia orders her to call for Tom. But as Patridge does not recog­

nize them, he refuses Honour's request to wake Tom, saying that

he is in bed with a woman. Then, Sophia bribes Susan, a maid­

servant of the inn, to learn the truth about Tom. Susan tells her:

" ' He ( Partridge ) told us, Madam, tho, to be sure it is all a lie,

that your ladyship was dying for love of the young squire, and

that he was going to the wars to get rid of you.'· . " 1 ( X , 5 ) This

information, of course, incences Sophia, and in revenge she lets

Tom know that she has been there, ordering Susan to put h.er muff

on his bed.

Thus, besides Tom's sexual digression, misunderstanding upon

misunderstanding prevents him from meeting Sophia. This is of

great moment in terms of the plot. First, it makes the deferment of

accomplishment of their love, which has the effect of suspense on

the reader who is told the truth of the whole course of the events.

Secondly, this incident makes Tom pursue her, which leads him

to London, and thus his former aimless wandering turns into a

quest with a definite purpose. Furthermore, misundersanding and

Tom's digression are some of the chief impediments to their love.

We are told that Sophia is " much more offended at the freedoms

which she thought ... he ( Tom ) had taken with her name and

character, than at any freedoms, in which ... he had indulged

himself with the person of another woman; ... " ( X ll, 8 ). And

at their meeting after Tom's parentage is disclosed, she accuses

-42-

him of his inconstancy: " 'After what past at Upton, so soon to

engage in a new armour with another woman·, while I fancied,

and you pretended. your heart was bleeding for me ! ... Can I be­

live the passion you have profest to me to be sincere ? ' " ( X

'WI, 12) Moreover, as we shall see later, in terms ·of his moral

development, the affair with Mrs. Waters (Jenny Jones) Is of cru­

cial importance.

Hence, misundersanding, which is one of effective devises in

comedy, serves for advancing the plot. Furthermore, we see that

it is deliberately incorporated into Fielding's whole design of the

novel's moral theme.

3

In terms of the plot, on the other hand, money 1s not a deci­

sive element. We see Black George steal 500 pounds in bank notes

which Allworthy has given Tom at his expulsion, and we see Tom

buy a book from an illiterate beggar which Sophia has dropped on

the road and contains a 100-pound note; in both cases the money

is to be restored to its proper owner in the end. But we hardly

see the characters buy anything, or earn money for their living;

instead, money is paid for service: for a mistress, a guide, an inn­

keeper, and so on (Tom thinks of Lady Bellaston 's money as his

" wages " (X V , 9 ) ) . Moreover, almost all the sources of money

in the novel is restricted to the characters of the upper class:

Squires Allworthy and Western, and Lady Bellaston. This means

that money is something given or inherited, which leads to the

crucial importance of inheritance of an estate, one of the most

important matters of squirarchy.

Thus, the hero, when he is on the road, does not struggle

-43-

for money, unlike Moll Flanders or Roderick Raridom. Tom's wan­

derings are not for money, but for his moral development. Field­

ing's use of the picaresque form is intended for presenting the

portrayal of society at large, like Smollett, but his emphasis is

laid upon the hero's encounters with people, each of which has a

didactic value and satirical purpose. Freed from the burden of

earning money for his survival, . Tom can fully appreciate the

moral meaning of the encounters, among which three are highly

important.

Firstly, the interpolated story of the Man of the Hill and his

way of life have a constant thematic parallelism. Although some

critics have denounced it as superfluous, we find that the re­

cluse's way of life makes an important point in the context of the

constant flow of moral judgement throughout the novel. He is, to

be sure, a genuine repentant and has profound knowledge about

philosophy, and besides, he is a pious Christian. And yet he lacks

true sympathy for his fellow-sufferers. Unlike Matthew Bramble in

Smollett 's Humphry Clinker, who is allegedly a misanthrope, but,

in reality, is always doing good and is willingly helping people in

need, the Man of the Hill is a genuine misanthrope. Tom, after

having listened to his story, mildly criticizes him:

"If there was indeed much more wickedness in the world

than there is, it would not prove such general assertions

against human nature, since much of this arrives by

mere accident, and many a man who commits evil, is

not totally bad and corrupt in his heart. In truth,

none seems to have any title to assert human nature

to be necessarily and universally evil, but those whose

-44-

own minds afford them one instance of this natural de­

pravity; which is not; I am convinced, you·r case.

(WI ,14)

Thus, Tom learns in the course of. his listening to the recluse's

story that knowledge and religion without sympathy for fellow­

sufferers are indeed ineffectual. His hatred and contempt for Par­

son Thwackum 's hypocritical preaching and education in his

boyhood was instinctive, but he can now partly theorize his way

of Christian faith by way of the precious encounter with the

recluse.

The next important encounter is the one with the gypsy king ..

Tom discusses various things with him, which are especially con­

cerned with the concept of rule and justice. And Tom witnesses

a fine example of the king's justice, when Partridge is caught

seduced by one of the gypsy women by her husband; the king's

sentence is just to all the persons concerned. Here is the ending

of their conversation:

'Me vil tell you.' said the king,' how the difference is

between you and us. My people rob your people, and

your people rob one another.'

Jones afterwards proceeded very gravely to sing forth

the happiness of those subjects who live under such a

magistrate. ( XII, 12 )

The king's word of " rob one another" is highly suggestive to

Tom, for he has learned that the concept of .right and justice

based on selfishness is hypocritical and thus useless. While Tom

-45-

as a boy defied Square's " the rule of right," penetrating instinc­

tively his selfish motive, he now learns more.

Finally, Tom's encounter with a would-be robber is also sig­

nificant in that this time he practices what he has learned

on the road, especially from the two people above mentioned_ The

robber is so weak that Tom can wrest the gun from him, but

when he finds that the man has attempted robbery because his

family is atarving, Tom forgives him and gives him two guineas

(XII, 14 ). Later as he discovers that this man is a relative of

Mrs. Miller, he is convinced that his act was right:

( Tom ) greatly ( exulted ) in the happiness which

he had procured to this poor family ( of the robber);

nor could he forbear reflecting without horror on the

dreadful consequences which must have attended them,

had he listened rather to the voice of strict justice than

to that of mercy, when he was attacked on the high

road. ( X Ill, 1 0 )

As we have seen, Fielding deliberately arranges Tom's various

experiences on the road according to his plan of Tom's moral de·

velopment, though at first glance this chain of episodes seems to

be random. And yet Tom's experiences on the road are not suf­

ficient for his moral perfection; he must experience further hard­

ships and learn more from them.

In terms of Tom's moral development, we also notice that

Fielding's use of the technique of contrast is highly effective. He

writes of his theory of contrast:

-46-

... we shall of necessity be led to open a new vein of

knowledge ... This vein is no other than that of contrast,

which runs through all the works of the creation, and

may, probably, have a large share in constituting in

us the idea of all beauty, as well natural as artificial:

For what demonstrates the beauty and excellence of

anything, but its reverse ? ( V, 1 )

Hence, we see the novel filled with antithetical pairs, who are al­

ways competing with each other. The central pair is Tom and

Master Blifil. As I have partly mentioned, they are contrastive in

every respect from status to personality; they have nothing in com­

mon except their mother. One of the most conspicuous differences

is that while Tom is spontaneous and thus thinks of nothing but

the present, Blifil is " thoughtful " and thus always calculates the

future. In other words, Tom is a man of instinct, which leads

him to various imprudent acts, whereas Blifil is' too "prudent," but

his prudence is only motivated by self-centered interest. Fielding

deliberately presents their differences since their boyhoods: at first

he makes it appear that Tom is a rogue and Blifil is toughtful

and obedient, then, as he presents various episodes, he unmasks

Blifil 's innermost motives by way of contrasting their attitudes in

a given episode . And this process of unmasking Blifil 's true na­

ture corresponds to the course of Tom's moral development. It

may well be that Blifil is a consummate villain, who is the em­

bodiment of selfishness and false respectability, and thus is quite

the same in his character throughout the novel, whereas Tom al­

ways learns from his experiences to finally become a victor. Thus,

in terms both of the plot and of the moral conflict the contrast

-47-

and conflict between this pair must continue to the very end of

the novel.

Another important pair is Allworthy and Western. Allworthy

is wise, virtuous, benevolent, and strict to justice, as his name sug­

gests. Nevertheless, one suspects that he may have a decisive flaw:

his lack of insight into people's true nature. He cannot see the

true motive of Captain Blifil 's courtship of his sister Bridget, or

the selfishness of both tutors, Square and Thwackum. Above all,

·his misunderstanding of the true nature of Tom and Blifil is of

great moment, and it causes him to banish Tom from his estate.

In this light, as William Empson suggests, " Allworthy is something

less than all-wise ... ~.o "This is, of course, necessary in terms of

the plot, but in point of looking through a person we see that

Western is sometimes superior to Allworthy. Western, though he

is uncultured, insensitive, and sometimes a tyrannical figure, is

fundamentally good-natured and h~s something of natural insight,

which he is not capable of putting into persuasive words. We see

this in the episode in which Blifil, at the age of thirteen, mali­

ciously releases the bird Tom gave 'Sophia. Allworthy believes

Blifil 's plausible excuse, but Western sees the malice of his act

and says in the presence of Allworthy, Thwackum and Square:

Pox of your laws of nature. I don't know what you

mean either of you (Square and Thwackum), by right or

wrong. To take away my girl's bird was wrong in my

opinion; and my: neighbour Allworthy may do as he

·pleases; but to encourage boys in such practices is to

breed them up to the gallows. ' ( W, 4 )

-48-

This allusion to the gallows corresponds to the narrator's descrip­

tion of Blifil's psychology after his intrigue has been disclosed:

" No, these tears C of Blifil ) were such as the frighted thief

sheds in his cart C that goes to the gallows ) ··· " { X 'WI.ll ) .

Thus, Western's intuition proves to be right, though later he is

also duped by Blifil 's appearances. Thus, Fielding's contrast be­

tween Allworthy and Western makes it dear that his ideal is

somewhere between them.

Furthermore, as we see Fielding's explicitly satirical depiction

of the pair of pedagogues, Square and Thwackum, and of Sophia

and Mrs. Western, as well as Sophia and her cousin Mrs. Fitz­

patrick, it may be concluded that Fielding does not believe that

book knowledge is a match for intuition and wisdom acquired

by experience. Both Square and Thwackum have great knowledge

about philosophy and religion, but their knowledge is mainly

used to show how they are superior to others; their knowledge

does not make them better themselves. Moreover, 1their greediness

shown in their response to Allworthy's will, in which each of

them is to be given £ 1000, is a high mark of satire on ped­

agogues who lack love and benevolence ( V, 8 ) . Similarly, Mrs.

Western, who is a good reader of literature, has great knowledge

in politics, and is familiar with the manner of the fashionable

society in Lon·don, cannot be happy due to her being haunted

by the notion of false respectability ( in Book X VH she endeav­

ours to marry Sophia to Lord Fellamar instead of Blifil, with

" the view of aggrandizing C her ) family " ) . Likewise, Mrs.

Fitzpatrick is a great reader, but because of her lack of In­

sight and prudence she is duped by a fortune hunter, and

lives in an unfortunate marriage. On the other hand, Sophia is

-49-

the embodiment of true wisdom, as her name indicates; though

we see her reading a book only once in the novel, her intui­

tion shown in her judgement of Blifil's true nature and thus her

flight from the forced marriage to him eventually proves to be

right.

Hence, Tom's pursuit of Sophia has a thematic· import: it is

essential for Tom's moral achievement to acquire Sophia (wisdom):

As has been mentioned, Tom learns lessons through his various

experiences on the road, but he lacks one important virtue: as

the narrator repeatedly tells us, he lacks prudence and circum­

spection, which brings about his various misfortunes. Therefore,

only Sophia can consummate Tom's moral development, which

means that he gets rid of the vicious circle of cause and effect

into which he is always trapped owing to his lack of prudence.

And, as we have seen that Tom has " naturally violent ani­

mal spirits" and he is learning empirically, it can be said that

Fielding's emphasis is laid not so much on knowledge without

deep human feelings as on empirical kn~wledge; moreover, if we

can say that Tom Jones, as his name suggests, is an everyman

figure, we may see in his characterization of Tom Fielding's re­

liance on healthy human instincts.

4

Fielding's technique of contrast is firmly linked with his

satirical intentions. The first target of his satire is the notion of

marriage of his time. First, we are told about Bridget's unhappy

marriage with Captain Blifil, who pretends to be virtuous but in

reality courts her only for money. Here the contrast between

Allworthy and Captain Blifil establishes Fielding's basic notion

-50-

of marriage which runs through the novel. This IS expressed in

the following words of Allworthy:

'I have always thought love the only foundation of

happiness in a married state; as it can only . ;produce

that high and tender friendship which should always be

the cement of this union; and, in my opinion, all those

marriages which are contracted from other motives, are

greatly criminal; they are a profanation of a most holy

ceremony, and generally end in disquiet and misery ... .'

.(I ' 12 )

This foreshadows what will happn in the marital life of Captain

Blifil and Bridget, and all the other marriages and courtships in

the novel. At the same time, this is the criterion by which the

author rewards or punishes the personages in the novel. In the

case of Captain Blifil, the punishment is immediately done. At

the end of Book I Dr Blifil, who has acted as a go- between in

Captain Blifil's courtship of Bridget, is now discarded by him

and soon dies in London. Captain Blifil also dies towards the

end of Book II; this case is depicted with full irony:

But while the Captain was one day busied in deep con­

templations of this kind, one of the most unlucky, as

well as unseasonable accidents, happened to him. The

utmost malice of Fortune could, indeed, have contrived

nothing so cruel, so mal-a-propos, so absolutely destruc­

tive to all his schemes. In short, not to keep the read­

er in long suspense, just at the very instant when his

-51-

heart was exulting in meditations on the happiness

which could accrue to him by Mr. Allworthy's death,

he himself-died of a apoplexy. ( II, 9 )

And the second book ends with the captain's epitaph, which per·

fectly contradicts the facts of his character and. his marriage

with Bridget. In the same book another unhappy marriage of Mr.

and Mrs. Partridge is added to this (this ma·rriage also ends

with the death of Mrs. Partidge, whose groundless jealousy in­

curs a grave misfortune on both of them). Although Fielding's

style in handling these marriages is comic and full of irony, his

conclusion that those who have caused an unfortunate marriage

must die gives a grave tone to his comic touch. Conversely speak­

ing, as Andrew Wright suggests, Tom Jones is "a comedy in which

sombreness of tone, though pervasive, is very far from preventing

h 'l . "11 1 anous response.

The way in which these unhappy marriages end, then, is a

prelude to the conflict between Tom and Blifil over Sophia. The

marriage scheme which Squire Western and his sister prepare

for Sophia is doubly contrasted: the notion of marriage of them

is contrasted with that of Allworthy, and also the selfish and

malicious motive of Blifil is contrasted with the genuine love be­

tween Tom and Sophia. Western and his sister's notion of mar­

riage is based not on love but on the honour of the family. Mrs.

Western gives a lecture to Sophia on matrimony

which she treated not as a romantic scheme of happi­

ness arising from love ··· she considered it rather as a

fund in which prudent women deposit their fortunes

-52-

to the best advantage, in order to receive a larger in­

terest for them than they could have elsewhere. ( W, 3 )

As I cited above, Allworthy's notion 1s quite the opposite to

theirs. As for Blifil, he inherits from his father the same pecu­

niary motive for marriage, which makes the reader expect that

the same punishment will befall him.

The next major targets of satire are Square and Thwackum.

The contrast between them hightens Fielding's aim for ridicule

on both of them. They are what Sheldon Sacks calls "the walking

concepts. " 12 The philosopher Square is depicted as a parody of a

deist, whereas Parson Thwackum is presented as " the divine "

whose too rigid theory dose not tolerate any human beings ex­

cept himself and those who give him material profit. Though

Fielding's presentation of them, filled with comic irony and ex­

aggeration, excites mirth, it seems that he does not intend to

mitigate his scourge of their pedantic egoism. Fielding explicitly

explains his creation of the two characters:

... it is with a view to their ( Virtue and Religion's )

service that I have take upon me to record the lives

and actions of two of their false and pretended cham­

pions. A treacherous friend is the most dangerous

enemy; and I will say boldly, that both religion and

virtue have received more real discredit from hypo­

crites, than the wittiest profligates or infidels could ever

cast upon them: Nay farther, as these two, in their pu­

rity, are rightly called the bands of civil society, and

are indeed the greatest of blessings; so when poisoned

-53-

and corrupted with fraud, pretense and affectation, they

have become the worst of civil curses, and have en­

abled men to perpetrate the most cruel mischiefs to

their own species. ( m , 4 )

Thus, we see that though their extremely opposite arguments

often contain a part .of truth, their selfish motives and the dis­

crepancy between their arguments and actual behaviour are 1m­

mediately revealed. This juxtaposition of an ideal theory with a

corrupt action highten!! the effect of unmasking their hypocrisy.

And it is Allworthy who, when a moral question is raised, often

about Tom's imprudent actions, "settles the matter by rejecting

both men's statements and providing the true solution, based on 13

true benevolence; " as Sean Shesgreen remarks.

Fielding, ho~ever, does not treat equally Thwackum and

Square. It is Thwackum who always flogs Tom mercilessly, and,

what is worse, he does so out of his design to gain the favour

of Widow Blifil, whereas Square is portrayed as having some

comic trait, as is shown in the scene in which Tom discovers

him in Moll 's bedroom. Thwackum's more malicious and violent

nature is seen symbolically in the scene in which he and Blifil,

the chief villain, have a fight with Tom ( V, 11) . And the letters

to Allworthy from Square and Thwackum in the eighteenth book

make a complete contrast. In his letter, Square, who is now on

his deathbed, repents sincerely for his sin, and vindicates Tom

from the guilt which has been laid against him. On the other

hand, Thwackum, in his letter, abuses Tom and has the impu­

dence to request the post of a vicar who he hears is dying. Be­

cause of this explicit expression of his egoism he utterly loses

-54-

All worthy's. favour; he is punished together .with Blifil. It seems

that Fielding considers a hypocritical and greedy parson· more

sinful because even such a .parson has an authority over inno­

cent people and thus he is more harmful to Christian faith and

society.

Another. target of satire is the fashionable society in London.

In the world of Tom Jones the ideal of pastoral life is con­

trasted with the corrupt city life. In the city setting .the relation­

ship between characters becomes more complicated, and dramatic

event is piled upon dramatic event; conspiracy against Tom is

redoubled and finally leads hi~ to his nadir in prison. The

most symbolical scene in the city life is the masquerade to which .

Tom is invited by Mrs. Bellaston ( X ill , 7 ) . In the masquerade

everyone puts on his mask and speaks polite but hollow words;

though everyone can identify everyone in his or her disguise. be­

cause " the· people of fashion " know one another well, the formal

convention of disguise is important,. as their daily life is. But it

is an essent~ally empty society which bears nothing practically

good. Fielding ridicules . the folly of polite society sweepingly:

I will .venture to say the highest Jife is much the

dullest, and affords very little humour Of ,entertainment.

The various callings in lower spher~s produce the great

variety of humorous characters; whereas here, except

among the few who have a relish for pleasure, all is

vanity and servile imitation. Dressing and cards, e!lting

and drinking, bowing and cour.tesying, make up the

business of their lives. (X IV, 1 )

-55-

The masquerade is the symbol of such a life. Thus the chapter

heading of Chapter seven of the thirteenth book, " Containing the

Whole Humours of a Masquerade" is a bitter irony. In the epi­

sode we must also note that Tom, once he has put on his mask,

begins to respond to Lady Bellaston's challenge to love in a so­

phisticated way, though he has "never less inclination to an amour. "

We are toli:l that this caused by the need to be acquainted with

her in order to meet Sophia and also by his sense of honour,

. but to think that Tom soon becomes her man, this is the begin­

ning of Tom's depravity in his city life.

Here, in terms of the moral theme, we strike the central par­

adox of the novel: Tom's depravity in doing a kind of prostitu­

tion coincides with the phase in which he does practical good

after having learned much on the road. Tom's relationship with

Lady Bellaston has often been furnished as evidence of his deg­

radation. Samuel Richardson, for example, called Tom "a kept

follow, the lowest of all fellows." 14 But it seems that Fielding

judges Tom's lapse necessary for his learning a further lesson.

In fact, Tom is growing virtuous and generous as he is being

"a kept fellow. " First, he offers £50, which Lady Bellaston

has given him, to the starving family of Anderson, who attempted

to rob him and who is a relative of Mrs. Miller. Secondly, he

acts as a go-between for Nightingale and Mrs. Miller's daughter,

Nancy, who without Tom's good offices would commit suicide.

The lesson Tom must learn is the causal relationship that his

imprudent act necessarily incurs bad results. Though when he

learns from Nightingale that Lady Bellaston has had amorous

dealings with a lot of young men, with Nightingale's advice he

can get rid of her by his letter of proposal of marriage to her,

-56-

which is the effective means to quit her, it later makes Sophia

doubt his constancy to her.

Earlier, Tom experienced serious trouble because of his im­

prudent affair with Molly Seagrim, but at that time he did not

learn a lesson. Thus, at the Upton Inn he incorrigibly succumbed

to temptation and went to bed with Mrs. Waters. This case brings

about a much direr result; when he is in prison, she sudden­

ly visits him, but Partridge, who sees her, tells him that she is

the former Jenny Jones, who is allegedly Tom's mother. To be

convinced of his having committed the sin of incest, therefore,

reduces him to the uttermost depth and makes him truly repent

of his imprudence.

' Sure,' cries Jones,' Fortune will never have done with

me, 'till she hath driven me to destruction. But why

do I blame Fortune ? I am myself the cause of all my

misery. All the dreadful mischiefs which have befallen

me, are the consequences only of my own folly and vice:

(XWI, 2)

Hence the lesson of the cause-effect relationship stings Tom to

the quick. And to think that Tom's misfortune is mainly caused

by his imprudence, Fielding wants him to learn the virtue of pru­

dence, the necessity of which he recurrently speaks. Here is an

example:

Prudence and circumspection are necessary even to the

best of men. They are indeed as it were a guard to

virtue, without which she can never be safe. It is not

-57-

enough that your designs, nay that. your actions, are

intrinsically good, you must take care they shall appeaF

so. < m, s )

And in the nadir of his fortune Tom finally learns this lesson,

and thus Fielding put an end to Tom's quest for his moral devel­

opment. This is, it seems to me, the meaning of the paradox.

Having glanced at three major targets of satire, we see that

Fielding's satire is closely connected with the moral theme and

the development of the plot m a complicated and subtle way.

Furthermore, his unmasking of the affectation and hypocrisy of

the persons at which satire is directed is essentially comic, mainly

due to his style of juxtaposition of seeming praise for the person

with exposure of his true, dirty motives. And we also see that

juxtaposition between stylistic comic effect and serious subject

matter gives depth to the novel.

At the end of the novel, everyone returns to the country and

the paradise of Allwothy's estate is restored. And yet the re­

stored paradise is not the same as before; it is much bettered

since there are no more villains nor intrigue. It may well be

that the process of restoring it, which is to say, Tom's moral de­

velopment hightens the value of it. And we see that reward and

punishment are offered to each character in proportion to his

virtur or vice. In this light, we may conclude that Tom Jones

is the world where retributive justice reigns over all the charac­

ters in it. In the words of Douglas Brooks, it is "the formal real­

ization of a mathematically conceived poetic justice~ 15 This is the

-58-

manifestation of Fielding's mechanic view of the world. He says

of it in the novel:.._ The world may indeed be considered as a vast

machine, in which the great wheels are originally set in motion

by those· which are very minute, and almost imperceptible to any

but the strongest eyes. " ( V, 4 ) He thus creates the world of a

prose fiction in which every incident or action is a part of the

interplay of cause and effect, and is led to a final order. To put

it another way, it is a world of literary laissez-faire in which the

character's instinctive and imprudent actions are led to harmony

by " the invisible hand. " This is related to Fielding's fundamen­

tal reliance on natural instincts, to which· I referred before.

It is, then, easy to perceive that it is Fielding as the om­

niscient narrator who rules this world. He directly talks to

the reader in the introductory chapter of each book, and guides

him throughout the novel by innumerable explanations of his

characters' motives and feelings in each episod.e. Indeed, he is

an excellent guide, who not only amuses the reader by the comic

style of his narrative, consisting of a rhetorical unmasking of the

affectations of the characters, ironical juxtaposition between seem­

ing praise for a character and immediate exposure of his true

motives, mock-heroic style and so on, but also makes the reader

fully appreciate his moral intention and various notions. The nar­

rator's existence in the novel is so overwhelming and fascinating

that we may feel as if he is also one of the characters. In this

light, we can not agree with Ian Watt's argument: the au-

thor's commentary makes no secret of the fact that his aim is 16

not to immerse us wholly in his fictional world ... " Rather, the

narrator's omnipresence is, it seems to me, in its particular way

an indispensable factor of the tight-knit structure of Tom Jones.

-59-

Hence. we share the feelings which are expressed in Wayne

Booth's suggestive remark on the first chapter of the eighteenth

book, whose heading is " A Farewell to the Reader":

When he ( the narrator ) draws to the end of his fare·

well, then, at a time wheq we know we are to lose

him, and uses terms which inevitably move us .across

the barrier to death itself, we find, lying beneath our

amusement at his playful mode of farewell, something

of the same feeling we have when we lose a close

friend, a friend who has given us a gift which we can 17

never repay.

6

As we have already seen, the starting point of Fielding was

his literary aim to destroy chivalry romance; the first picaresque

novel, Lazarillo de Tormes, was the first attemgt at it and upon

the flourish of the picaresque novel in Spain Cervantes created

his monumental work of Don Quixote. And yet it does not fol­

low that Fielding remained in the state of imitation of the mas­

terpiece of Cervantes. In Joseph Anbrews Fielding puts Parson

Adams, a most Quixotic figure, in the center of the novel: As

Quixote is a corrective to various corrupt aspects of society by

his madness, and a fascinating vehicle for satire, Parson Adams

is a touchstone by which to test various characters he meets on

the road through his other-worldly good nature and innocence.

And the structure 'of "the novel is loose and rough-and-tumble.

But in Tom Jones Fielding created a much more sophisticated

and original world, having assimilated his predecessors.

-60-

From what we have seen in Tom Jones, . it could be said that

Fielding used the picaresque form and at the same time he de­

stroyed some of the essential characteristics of the from, which

is to say, he re-created the form. Firstly, he abandons the epi­

sodic and loose structure of the traditional picaresque novel, and

creates an architechtonic and tightly knit structure, in which eve­

ry character or incident has some relationship' in a most subtle

and complicated way. And main secrets in the plot, including

Tom's parentage, Jenny Jones's disappearance, the conspiracy of

Blifil and the attorney Dowling, and so forth, which are also effec­

tive in creating suspense, are deliberately arranged towards the

denouement. Besides, Fielding's use of antithetical pairs of char­

acters has the effect of creating aesthetic symmetry in the plot.

Even the various episodes and incidents in the course of Tom's

wanderings after his banishment from Allworthy's estate, which

part is most close to the· traditional picare!)que novel, have a def­

initely thematic meaning; as I have tried to show, they are delib­

erately arranged for the purpose of Tom's moral development.

Secondly, Fielding does not create Tom as the traditional

picaro. Although Tom as a foundling is at first an outcast fig­

ure, which is one of the fundamental traits of the picaro, he . has

a great protector, unlike Lazarillo or Moll Franders, so that he is

not forced to struggle for survival. Freed from the burden of

earning his bread, Tom's task on the road and in London is to

learn from the people he encounters and achieve his moral

growth. In the traditional picaresque novel the picaro's growth

to maturity is one of the themes; but it is inseparably connected

to the picaro's hardships or individualistic struggle in the lower

world. But in this novel the emphasis is laid upon Tom's learn-

-61-

ing process or moral growth in the course of his various actions

and his relationship with other characters. In this sense, Tom

Jones could be regarded as a bildungsroman in its tentative way.

Thirdly, the existence of the omnipresent narrator is highly

important. In most of the traditional picaresque novels the picaro

narrates his story in the form of autobiography. Fielding's third­

person narrator is, as we have seen above, effective in . its creat­

ing highly sophisticated style and the fictional world filled with

generous humour and irony. And it is this narrator who leads

various characters through much complicated relationship to the

final resolution and harmony, and who gives coherence to this

intricate and panoramic world of prose fiction.

It can be said, then, that Fielding's picaresque novel opened

up the possibillHy of reshaping the traditional form and creating

a new fictional world. And with the success of Tom Jones, to­

gether with the success of Smollett's Roderick Random and Hum­

phry Clinker(1777), the picaresque novel proved to be resilient

and adaptable to new environments. As in the words of Max­

imillian Novak, the picaresque novel ceased to be a particular 18

form of literature and became "a universal mode~ And this means

that Tom Jones contributes in various ways to the enhancement

of the value of the novel, which was then regarded as a some­

what inferior genre to poetry or drama. This is why Walter Scott

called Fielding " father of the English Novel. " 19

-62-

Notes

The present paper is a revised version of the third chapter of

my MA thesis, " A Study of the Eighteenth-Century English Pica­

resque Novel, " presented to Tokyo University of Foreign Studies in

January 1988.

1 Smollett writes in his " Preface " to Roderick Random, after

praising the method of Cervantes: " The same method( as Cervantes)

has been practiced by other Spanish and French authors, and by

none more successful than Monsieur Le Sage, who in his adventure

of Gil Blas, has described the knavery and foibles of life, with infi­

nite humour and sagacity. - The following sheets I have modelled

on his plan .... " Tobias George Smollett, The Adventures of Roderick

Random, ed. Paul-Gabriel Bouce (Oxford Univ. Press, 1979 ) p. xliv.

2 Henry Fielding, The History of Tom Jones, A Foundling, ed.

Sheridan Baker (New York: W. W. Norton&Company, 1973 ), pp.l13-

14 . All further references to this work appear in the text. All quo­

tations are referred to in parenthesis by the book and chapter in

which they appear. And the Roman numerals indicate the book

numbers and the arabic numerals the chapter numbers. Throughout

the text I have modernized the eighteenth-century use of the capi­

tal letter.

3 Frank Wadleigh Chandler, The Literature of Roguery, 2 vols.

( New York: Burt Franklin, 1958 ) , p. 308. 4 .. " Samuel Colridge, Table Talk in Henry Fielding: Tom Jones,

ed. Neil Compton (London: Macmillan, 1970 ) , pp. 32-33.

5 Arnold Kettle, An Introduction to the English Novel,

(London: Hutchinson Univ. Library, 1951 ) , p. 79.

6 As to why Fielding makes Tom a bastard, Homes Dudden

-63-

offers an convincing explanation. See Homes Dudden, Henry Fielding:

His Life, Works and Times, 2 vols. (Oxford: The Clarendon Press,

1952 ) ' p. 638.

7 Ian Watt, The Rise of the Novel: Studies in Defoe,

Richardson and Fielding (Berkeley and Los Angels: Univ. of Califor­

ma Press, 1957 ) , p. 270.

8 Kettle, p. 78.

9 Colridge, p. 33.

10 William Empson," Tom Jones," in Henry Fielding: Tom Jones,

ed. Neil Compton (London: Macmillan, 1970 ) , p. 145. II

Andrew Wright, Henry Fielding: Mask and Feast (Berkeley

and Los Angeles; Univ. of California Press, 1966 ) , p. 75.

12 Sheldon Sacks, Fiction and the Shape of Belief (Chicago:

The Univ. of Chicago Press, 1980 ) , p. 105. 13

Sean Shesgreen, Literary Portraits in the Novels of Henry

Fielding ( Dekalb: Northern Illinois Univ. Pres"s, 1972 ) , p. 118.

14 Quoted by Dudden, p. 636. 15

Douglas Brooks Number and Pattern in the Enghteenth-cen-

tury Novel ( London: Routledge&Kegan Paul, 1973 ) , p. 103.

16 Watt, p. 277.

17 Wayne C. Booth, The Rhetoric of Fiction, 2nd ed. ( Chicago:

The Univ. of Chicago Press, 1983 ) , p. 218.

18 Maximillian Novak, " Freedom, Libertism, and the Picaresque,"

m Racism in the Eighteenth Century, ed. Harold E. Pag~iaro ( Cleve­

land: Case Western Univ. press, 1973 ) , pp. 35-48, as quoted by

Percy G. Adams, Travel Literature and the Evolution of the Novel

(Lexington: The University Press of Kentucky, 1983 ) , p. 3.

19 Sir Walter Scott, Lives of the Novelists (London: J. M. Dent

& Sons, 1928 ) , p. 70.

-64-