The Complexities Of Morality And Perception In Tom Jones Essay, Research Paper

When Henry Fielding’s Tom Jones was published, it was considered by many critics to be an entirely immoral, and thus, quite offensive piece of writing. Even the back cover of our Oxford World’s Classics edition makes reference to the work as “A motley history of bastardism, fornication and adultery.” Inside this same edition, John Bender’s introduction describes the negative response to the work by Fielding’s own peers and predecessors in Samuel Johnson and Samuel Richardson (xvii-xx). While the public was somewhat more enticed by the story’s seedy details and wild characters, the book was generally considered with at least a little skepticism regarding the seeming lack of a moral center. This opinion, however, seems to be slightly off the mark. Perhaps more severely villainized for its form (the then new and lowly novel) in conjunction with its content, Tom Jones, is upon close inspection, a tale that does in fact include a certain kind of moralism. In Book III, Chapter VII, Fielding includes a kind of direct statement about the complexities of virtue and goodness. His ideas on the subject are quite realistically multi faceted, and presented as such, with his method of delivery supporting his opinion.

Chapter VII of Book III begins with a description of the way in which Mr. Allworthy views both Tom and Master Blifil. It is mentioned that Mrs. Blifil’s adoration for Tom had had the effect of souring Mr. Allworthy’s opinion of the boy. Further, Mrs. Blifil’s less pleasant impression of her own son had created the opposite effect, endearing Master Blifil to Mr. Allworthy in a way completely out of sync with any objective sizing up of character. This development in the relationship between these characters is certainly useful for Fielding. His novel is a work containing many sets of corresponding opposites. And so this direct and opposing set of opinions about Tom and Master Blifil helps establish the two as one of these sets. Also, the formation of Mr. Allworthy’s less than shining opinion of Tom provides some foreshadowing of his later actions towards our main character. Fielding goes as far as to directly point out this foreshadowing, in a typical intrusion of narrative perspective, when he tells us that this developing shift in opinions has “prepared Mr. Allworthy’s mind for those impressions which afterwards produced the mighty events that will be contained hereafter in this history” (122). This kind of narrative intrusion pops up all over Tom Jones, and it is an exceptionally blatant use of the device later in the chapter which gives this portion of the book such importance when considering Fielding’s moral implications.

After establishing the impression of the two boys developed by Mr. Allworthy, Fielding inserts an entire paragraph, written in the author’s own voice, outlining one of the novels major moral assertions. Fielding, aware of this passage’s function, even subtitles the chapter “In which the author himself makes an appearance on the stage” (121), laying out for the reader a clear understanding of the presence of a narrative voice outside the action of the story which serves to clarify the author’s opinion of the chapter’s meaning. He uses the impression of the boys described above to make a comment about the complexities of virtue. Our narrator begins by stating this intent and pointing out its importance. He writes, “In recording some instances of these, we shall, if rightly understood, afford a very useful lesson to those well-disposed youths who shall hereafter be our readers” (122). Here Fielding establishes that the message to come will be a kind of explanation of his theme. He aims, perhaps just a little facetiously, to instruct his readers by means of directly placing his own opinions within the work. His message is as follows, “goodness of heart and openness of temper, though these may give them great comfort within, and administer to an honest pride in their own minds, will by no means, alas! Do their business in the world” (122). He says, further, “Let this, my young readers, be your constant maxim, that no man can be good enough to enable him to neglect rules of prudence; nor will Virtue herself look beautiful unless she be bedecked with the outward ornaments of decency and decorum” (122). This assertion about the complicated nature of goodness is central to the novels morality. For Tom Jones is not an immoral work. It is, more accurately, a work which takes a more realistic and human approach to the idea of goodness. Tom may be seen as a vulgar character, for he constantly finds himself involved in less than appropriate behaviors, but this estimation of his character denies the possibility that a person’s nature is somewhat subjective. Fielding means to assert that outward goodness and interior goodness are in some ways separate, and that the abstract “objective” goodness of a person is perhaps more reliant on the simple appearance of goodness than any real strength in character. The whole of Tom Jones seems to support this idea. Even something as basic to the plot as Tom’s questionable parentage points to this understanding of morality. For when he is a “bastard,” his actions are criticized, and his character slandered. But when he is discovered to have come from a more proper lineage, he is celebrated, as if he were accepted all along. The way in which Sophia reacts to her reputation being smudged later in work also supports this theme. She is more upset with her good name being devalued than with the actual infidelity of her lover, because again, appearance is central to the estimation of one’s character. In this chapter, the way in which Tom and Master Blifil are perceived is key in establishing Fielding’s understanding of virtue’s delicately complicated nature. It is also worth mentioning, that Fielding’s use of a distinct narrator to deliver this message, and one who goes on to apologize for interrupting and so boldly stating his theme, is supportive of his message. If Fielding’s morality is one which recognizes subjectivity, than the addition of a clearly authored statement like this one, makes its message stand out. Appearance and perspective is so wrapped up in the estimation of a character, that this message Fielding “could not prevail on any of (his) actors to speak” (123).

In short, Tom Jones, originally criticized for lacking a sense of morals, contains what seems like an entirely realistic treatment of human nature. Fielding recognizes the complexity of goodness, and its relationship to the perception of others. The characters in his novel find themselves in any number of situations which support this idea. And, as we have seen in chapter VII of Book III, Fielding goes as far as to outright state his impression of morality. It is almost ironic, really, that a work which points to the complications involved with goodness and perception of goodness should be so thoroughly criticized for vulgarity and immorality. Tom Jones is quite like Tom Jones in that sense, for its outward appearance belies its more soundly moral interior

Fielding, Henry, Tom Jones (Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, 1996).