1/ One of the readers of this blog, who prefers Richardson to Fielding, once said he thought Tom Jones was… cute. I don’t agree. Tom Jones is a comic novel, but there is nothing affected or superficial or naïve about it. Fielding doesn’t shy away from evil or misery.
He begins the novel as a world of warmth and kindness but very quickly lets us see that humanity is not all Mr Allworthys: we see Dr Blifil scheme his brother’s way into Mr Allworthy’s family and fortunes, and we see Captain Blifil turn into a despot once he’s married to Mr Allworthy’s sister. And throughout the novel, Fielding depicts brutal husbands and tyrannical fathers.
“… He was indeed as bitter an enemy to the savage authority too often exercised by husbands and fathers, over the young and lovely of the other sex, as ever knight-errant was to the barbarous power of enchanters; nay, to say truth, I have often suspected that those very enchanters with which romance everywhere abounds were in reality no other than the husbands of those days; and matrimony itself was, perhaps, the enchanted castle in which the nymphs were said to be confined.” (B.11, ch.8)
The novel also depicts hypocrites and liars and mercenaries and trollops and thieves and rakes and manipulators and so on. Not at all a rosy view of life. Fielding may present himself as a warm and witty man, a large-hearted man, a man forgiving and tolerant of people’s moral failings, but he makes a clear distinction between foibles and callousness or cruelty. For example, Tom Jones, despite his love for Sophia, sleeps with lots of women and cannot say no to those who throw themselves at him—that’s a foible—but Fielding makes a clear distinction between him and the men who play with women’s feelings, who deliberately use women for pleasure then discard them once done.
2/ Let me quote my friend Himadri (Argumentative Old Git) on Fielding and Richardson’s Pamela:
“… However, for all the rumbustiousness, Fielding’s moral compass is very firmly established. His principal argument with Richardson is not, after all, that Richardson was too serious in his morals, but that he wasn’t serious enough – that allowing Pamela to be “rewarded” for her virtue with marriage with her former tormentor made virtue itself but a commodity.”
3/ Fielding is progressive—the word is now rather tainted but I mean it in the good sense—he’s strongly in favour of marrying for love and against forced marriages or mercenary marriages.
I also like the range of female characters in Tom Jones.
Mrs Western for example is a great character. Sophie’s aunt, she’s much more severe and cruel than Lady Russell from Persuasion, but the similarity is that she wants to persuade Sophia into a marriage with Master Blifil out of prudence—or what she perceives as prudence—not out of cruelty or a tyrannical will. There is a great contrast between her and her hot-headed brother. Fielding also gives her some great lines:
““… While I have been endeavouring to fill her mind with maxims of prudence, you have been provoking her to reject them. English women, brother, I thank heaven, are no slaves. We are not to be locked up like the Spanish and Italian wives. We have as good a right to liberty as yourselves. We are to be convinced by reason and persuasion only, and not governed by force…”” (B.6, ch.14)
She’s much more intelligent than Squire Western—contrast their reactions upon finding out that Sophia’s hiding at Lady Bellaston’s:
““… Do you really imagine, brother, that the house of a woman of figure is to be attacked by warrants and brutal justices of the peace? […] Justices of peace, indeed! do you imagine any such event can arrive to a woman of figure in a civilised nation?” (B.15, ch.16)
Lady Bellaston is also a great character, a lascivious and manipulative and enthralling woman, one who would fit right in Dangerous Liaisons.
““Doth not your ladyship think,” says Mrs Fitzpatrick eagerly, “that it would be the best way to write immediately to my uncle, and acquaint him where my cousin is?”
The lady pondered a little upon this, and thus answered—“Why, no, madam, I think not. Di Western hath described her brother to me to be such a brute, that I cannot consent to put any woman under his power who hath escaped from it. I have heard he behaved like a monster to his own wife, for he is one of those wretches who think they have a right to tyrannise over us, and from such I shall ever esteem it the cause of my sex to rescue any woman who is so unfortunate to be under their power…”” (B.13, ch.3)
She is scheming and deceitful, but Fielding gives her charming qualities—the only pity is that she doesn’t have a lot of room to develop, being one of the supporting characters—I wonder if Thackeray later borrowed a bit of Lady Bellaston for Becky Sharp in Vanity Fair. Lady Bellaston is more sophisticated than Lady Booby in Joseph Andrews, though that’s also a brilliant character.
Molly Seagrim (Tom’s first lover?) is not a badly written character either. She’s vividly drawn, a rugged and sexual and feisty woman, very different from the equally lustful Lady Bellaston.
I’m gonna have to read and think some more before writing about Sophia, the heroine of the book.
Tom Jones is more and more engrossing. The last third is exciting!
When I wrote "...cute" I was attempting (badly) to describe not an intrinsic quality of Tom Jones but rather my emotional relationship/response to it. I liked it, quite a lot, and I'm sure I would have liked it even more if I had discovered it during my twenties, when I was much more into narrative playfulness than I am now. But I had just read Pamela, which I found deeply disturbing. The reason I was hoping you'd continue with it is because I was curious to see what you thought actually happens at the end. Every reader I have ever heard of reads it as a story of redemption and reward. I never intend to go against the judgement of the world, but I was simply unable to read it that way.
ReplyDelete"Every reader I have ever heard of" - you have heard of Henry Fielding.
ReplyDeleteI know I should finish reading Pamela before condemning it, but the idea of her getting the "reward" of marrying the man who sexually harassed her, abducted her, and held her against her will is to me morally repugnant.
ReplyDeleteIndeed, Mr. B is a monster. You've articulated a part of the received interpretation: that Pamela's marriage to a reformed Mr. B is to be read as her reward. I don't accept that interpretation. I think something else is going on.
ReplyDeleteSo what do you think it is?
Delete