had not, after her marriage, to be as forgiving as Amelia, I fear I
must admit that probably it was so. But Dr. Johnson himself thought
little of that.
I am afraid our only way of
dealing with Fielding's
morality is to
take the best of it and leave the
remainder alone. Here I find that
I have
unconsciously agreed with that
well-knownphilosopher, Mr.
James Boswell, the younger, of Auchinleck:
"The moral
tendency of Fielding's writings . . . is ever favourable
to honour and
honesty, and cherishes the
benevolent and
generousaffections. He who is as good as Fielding would make him is an
amiable member of society, and may be led on by more regulated
instructions to a higher state of ethical perfection."
Let us be as good and simple as Adams, without his
vanity and his
oddity, as brave and
generous as Jones, without Jones's faults, and
what a world of men and women it will become! Fielding did not
paint that
unborn world, he sketched the world he knew very well.
He found that
respectable people were often
perfectly blind to the
duties of
charity in every sense of the word. He found that the
only man in a whole company who pitied Joseph Andrews, when stripped
and
beaten by robbers was a postilion with defects in his moral
character. In short, he knew that respectability often practised
none but the
strictly self-regarding virtues, and that
poverty and
recklessness did not always
extinguish a native
goodness of heart.
Perhaps this discovery made him leniently disposed to "characters
and situations so wretchedly low and dirty, that I," say the author
of "Pamela," "could not be interested for any one of them."
How
amusing Richardson always was about Fielding! How jealousy,
spite, and the
confusion of mind that befogs a prig when he is not
taken
seriously, do
darken the eyes of the author of "those
deplorably
tedious lamentations, 'Clarissa' and 'Sir Charles
Grandison,'" as Horace Walpole calls them!
Fielding asks his Muse to give him "humour and good humour." What
novelist was ever so rich in both? Who ever laughed at mankind with
so much
affection for mankind in his heart? This love shines in
every book of his. The poor have all his good-will, and in him an
untired
advocate and friend. What a life the poor led in the
England of 1742! There never before was such
tyranny without a
servile
insurrection. I remember a
dreadful passage in "Joseph
Andrews," where Lady Booby is
trying to have Fanny, Joseph's
sweetheart, locked up in prison:-
"It would do a Man good," says her accomplice, Scout, "to see his
Worship, our Justice,
commit a Fellow to Bridewell; he takes so much
pleasure in it. And when once we ha' 'um there, we seldom hear any
more o' 'um. He's either starved or eat up by Vermin in a Month's
Time."
This England, with its
dominant Squires, who behaved much like
robber barons on the Rhine, was the merry England Fielding tried to
turn from some of its ways. I
seriously do believe that, with all
its faults, it was a better place, with a better breed of men, than
our England of to-day. But Fielding satirized intolerable
injustice.
He would be a Reformer, a didactic
writer. If we are to have
nothing but "Art for Art's sake," that burly body of Harry
Fielding's must even go to the wall. The first Beau Didapper of a
critic that passes can shove him aside. He preaches like Thackeray;
he writes "with a purpose" like Dickens--obsolete old authors. His
cause is judged, and into Bridewell he goes, if l'Art pour l'Art is
all the
literary law and the prophets.
But Fielding cannot be kept in prison long. His noble English, his
sonorous voice must be heard. There is somewhat inexpressibly
heartening, to me, in the style of Fielding. One seems to be
carried along, like a
swimmer in a strong, clear
stream, trusting
one's self to every whirl and eddy, with a feeling of safety, of
comfort, of
delightful ease in the
motion of the
elastic water. He
is a
scholar, nay more, as Adams had his
innocentvanity, Fielding
has his
innocent pedantry. He likes to quote Greek (fancy quoting