Constructing a Moral Universe
Lothar Cerny asserts that Fielding is “not a moral philosopher,” but rather he is a “poet providing his readers with images which ‘possess the sight of the soul’” (Cerny 313). I have to disagree with that statement, because though Fielding may be presenting ‘images of the soul,’ he is also ensuring that his readers interpret those ‘images’ in the way Fielding desires. Fielding does not limit himself to only showing us the moral conduct that he promotes, but also sharply satirizes and criticizes the opposites of his moral philosophy.
One example of Fielding’s satirical analysis of other moral philosophers is presented in the prefatory chapter to Book VI, “On love.” Here Fielding likens “certain philosophers” who maintain that love does not exist “in the human breast” to “finders of gold,” i.e. men who clean latrines (Fielding 233).
In reality, I am inclined to suspect that all these several finders of truth are the very identical men who are by others called the finders of gold. The method used in both these searches after truth and after gold being, indeed, one and the same, viz., the searching, rummaging, and examining into a nasty place; indeed, in the former instances into the nastiest of all places, A BAD MIND. (Fielding 233)
Fielding then continues to grant “some concessions” to those philosophers, and to state that “esteem and gratitude are the proper motives to love, as youth and beauty are to desire” (Fielding 235). Then he uses his rhetorical skills to persuade readers to embrace his views on love: Fielding exhorts readers to “examine” their hearts, and see if they will discover the truth of his view (Fielding 235). If we do, we can continue reading. If not, we are admonished that it would be better for us to put the book aside than to “throw away any more of [our] time in reading what [we] can neither taste nor comprehend” (Fielding 235). Fielding most likely begins with promoting his views on love because that is the easiest aspect of moral philosophy to obtain agreement from others.
In the introduction to Book VII, Fielding invokes the terminology of the theatre as an extended metaphor for discussing the conflict between passion and reason in humans.
A single bad act no more constitutes a villain in life than a single bad part on the stage. The passions, like the managers of a playhouse, often force men upon parts without consulting their judgment, and sometimes without any regard to their talents. (Fielding 286)
Thus, we the readers are encouraged to identify with “the man of candour and of true understanding” who “can censure an imperfection” without condemning the “guilty party” rather than aligning ourselves with the “worst of men” who “generally have the words rogue and villain most in their mouths” (Fielding 286). The proper conduct that Fielding is advocating here is that people should place a higher value on mercy than on justice, or at least, to temper justice with mercy. Fielding depicts this tempering of justice with mercy in the character of Mr. Allworthy.
Bibliography
Cerny, Lothar. “‘But the Poet…Never Affirmeth’: A Reply to Bernard Harrison.” Connotations 3.3 (1993-94): 312-17.
Fielding, Henry. Tom Jones. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996.
Mary Arnold holds a B.A. in literature and history. She is an author on http://www.Writing.Com/ which is a site for Creative Writing.
Her writing portfolio may be viewed at http://www.Writing.com/authors/ja77521