Part 1 (2/2)
I suppose there is still somebody living who has not read _Tom Jones_: it seems inconceivable that it should be so, but queer things of this sort do happen. Only the other day I met a man who had never seen any Gilbert and Sullivan comic opera. To say that Fielding possessed more wit and humour and more knowledge of mankind than any other person of modern times, except Shakespeare, ought to be sufficient to drive anyone ignorant of his work at once to the nearest bookshop. ”Since the days of Homer,” says one great critic, ”the world has not seen a more artful fable [than _Tom Jones_]. The characters and adventures are wonderfully diversified; yet the circ.u.mstances are all so natural, and rise so easily from one another, and co-operate with so much regularity in bringing on, even while they seem to r.e.t.a.r.d, the catastrophe, that the curiosity of the reader is kept always awake, and instead of flagging, grows more and more impatient as the story advances, till at last it becomes downright anxiety. And when we get to the end, and look back on the whole contrivance, we are amazed to find that of so many incidents there should be so few superfluous; that in such variety of fiction there should be so great probability, and that so complete a tale should be so perspicuously conducted and with perfect unity of design.”
We read and reread _Tom Jones_ in order to recapture some of that first careless rapture which is so refres.h.i.+ng a point in Fielding's fiction, to get away from the weary, meticulous self-a.n.a.lysis of the modern novelist, to the full-blooded, honest att.i.tude of the country-bred Englishman of the eighteenth century. Here we have a tale told for the sake of narrative, with incidents, the interest in which never for a moment flags, characters all lively, true and fresh, dialogue full of point, variety and suitability. It is a test of our interest that we feel angry at the constant digressions and interruptions, but who would do without those masterly initial chapters in each book?
As to the charge of coa.r.s.eness which has been brought against him, we feel that Fielding would have been dumbfounded with surprise. He states explicitly, over and over again, that to recommend goodness and innocence was always his sincere endeavour, and certainly no higher-souled, purer heroine than Sophia Western ever walked. Even Tom Jones himself, who was singularly unable to resist the importunity of frail ladies, acts up to a code which is certainly not coa.r.s.e.
”I do not pretend to the gift of chast.i.ty more than my neighbours,” he says to Nightingale. ”I have been guilty with women, I own it, but am not conscious that I ever injured any. Nor would I, to procure pleasure to myself, be knowingly the cause of misery to any human being.”
Allworthy, as his name suggests, is a model of what we should all like to be, generous, pure, slow to believe evil, quick to forgive, a true friend and a merciful judge.
”It hath been my constant maxim in life,” he says to Blifil when he hears of his sister's marriage, ”to make the best of all matters that happen.”
Not that Fielding makes his characters impossibly good: there is none that avoids some taint. Allworthy is altogether too credulous, and Sophia's allegiance to her family pa.s.ses the bounds of common sense, while the rest of the characters have very much of the earthy in their texture. The lovable Partridge is a coward, his wife a shrew, Allworthy's sister and her husband hate each other like poison, Square and Thwack.u.m are eaten up with hypocrisy and deceit, young Blifil is an unredeemed villain, Squire Western is an ignorant, blasphemous boor, and his sister would be a thorn in any man's flesh. Square, with his eternal harping on the natural beauty of virtue, and Thwack.u.m, with his chatter about the divine power of grace, are a pretty couple of scoundrels for Fielding to lavish his irony on.
”Had not Thwack.u.m too much neglected virtue, and Square religion, in the composition of their several systems, and had not both utterly discarded all natural goodness of heart, they had never been represented as the objects of derision in this history,” says the author.
But perhaps Fielding's greatest charm lies in his firm, masculine, straightforward, even racy English. We may take as an example what the ordinary author finds most difficult, the description of his heroine.
”Her shape was not only exact, but extremely delicate; and the nice proportion of her arms promised the truest symmetry in her limbs. Her hair, which was black, was so luxuriant that it reached her middle, before she cut it to comply with the modern fas.h.i.+on, and it was now curled so gracefully in her neck that few could believe it to be her own.... Her eyebrows were full, even, and arched beyond the power of art to imitate. Her black eyes had a l.u.s.tre in them which all her softness could not extinguish. Her nose was exactly regular, and her mouth, in which were two rows of ivory, exactly answered Sir John Suckling's description in those lines:
'Her lips were red, and one was thin, Compared to that was next her chin.
Some bee had stung it newly.'
Her cheeks were of the oval kind, and in her right she had a dimple, which the least smile discovered.”
Such is the girl who fell in love with Tom Jones in her teens and who after an amazing series of misfortunes ultimately married him, in spite of her knowledge of his many temporary intrigues with other women.
Indeed, if she followed after her father, she would have ”liked him the better for it.”
”You have not the worse opinion of a young fellow,” bellows the Squire to Sophia, ”for getting a b.a.s.t.a.r.d, have you, girl? No, no, the women will like un the better for't.”
Certainly Sophia did not seem to like Tom the worse for his amatory adventure with Molly Seagrim, perhaps because she, like her creator, was able to differentiate between real love and that ”desire of satisfying a voracious appet.i.te with a certain quant.i.ty of delicate white human flesh” which pa.s.ses for love.
In other words, Fielding has made her human.
”We ... are admitted behind the scenes of this great theatre of nature,”
he proudly says in one of his prefaces ”(and no author ought to write anything besides dictionaries and spelling-books who hath not this privilege)....” He is certainly admitted behind the scenes of the country squire's household.
Sophia's aunt, with her political and philosophical a.n.a.logies (”You are to consider me, child, as Socrates, not asking your opinion, but only informing you of mine”; and again, ”The French shall as soon persuade me that they take foreign towns in defence only of their own country as you can impose on me to believe you have never yet thought seriously of matrimony ...”); Sophia's father's relations with his wife (”His conversation consisted chiefly of halloaing, singing, relations of sporting adventures, bawdy, and abuse of women and of the Government: these, however, were the only seasons when Mr Western saw his wife, for when he repaired to her bed he was generally so drunk that he could not see; and, in the sporting season, he always rose from her before it was light”) and his att.i.tude to her after she died (”When anything in the least soured him, as a bad scenting day, or a distemper among his hounds, or any other such misfortune, he constantly vented his spleen by invectives against the deceased, saying, 'If my wife was alive now, she would be glad of this.'”)--all these pictures are lightning strokes of verisimilitude which prove how perfectly at home Fielding was in the great theatre of nature.
When we come to the lower cla.s.ses, to Mrs Honour, with her ”Marry, come up!” ”Hoity toity!” prefaces to gossip, which is only rivalled and not excelled by her counterpart in Shakespeare, Juliet's nurse; to Partridge, with his pricelessly irrelevant tags from the cla.s.sics: ”infandum, regina, jubes renovare dolorem,” ”hinc illae lachrymae,”
”tempus edax rerum,” and so on, we can only give ourselves up whole-heartedly to the enjoyment of them and wish that they may go on talking for ever.
<script>