Joseph Andrews Lecture II Joseph as hero and the novel’s socio-legal critique

Joseph's insistence on chastity leaves him open to the criticism that his virtue is passive and negative,
consisting simply in 'not doing something'. During his adventures on the road, adventures we would associate
with a picaro (hero of the picaresque novel with its panorama of life and the associated 'spice'), Fielding is
able to show that Joseph has a more active side to his virtue: he shows charity and what Fielding refers to as
'good nature'. Tom Jones is perhaps Fielding's ultimate embodiment of 'good nature', that is, the ability to
empathise with others and feel their joys and their misfortunes. Tom doesn't have Joseph's chastity or his
spiritual standards but, like Joseph, he cares for people and actively helps them. Wilson learns to appreciate
this active virtue (III,chs.3-4,pp.179-204) and marries someone who embodies charity: he fell in love with a
coquette but learns to value the goodness of the daughter of the man who bought his lottery ticket. It wins
and she sends him £200 when he is destitute - huge amount of money in those days. They marry and live in
peaceful and virtuous retirement.
This idea of virtue as charity is related to the latitudinarian teaching that salvation is earned by good
works. See Adams's comments re good works and Whitfield's 'detestable Doctrine of Faith against good
Works' in I,ch.17,p.72. See also III,ch.13,pp.244-6. Fielding is espousing the idea that chastity and charity
are complementary: eighteenth-century society tended to concentrate exclusively on chastity as the only
necessary virtue but latitudinarians and indeed Christian teaching argues that chastity, a personal virtue, and
charity, a social virtue, are both necessary.
These qualities are represented in the biblical figures of Joseph and Abraham. Fielding's Joseph is to
be partly interpreted in a scriptural context and is clearly reminiscent of the biblical Joseph and his
temptation by Potiphar's wife, whom he resisted. Adams, whose first name is Abraham, like his biblical
namesake, expresses his faith in good works, as opposed to empty words. Abraham's faith manifested itself
in works such as preparing to sacrifice his beloved son in obedience to God. Joseph and Adams are of course
comic figures but there are vestiges of the dignity of the biblical figures and the very fact that we inevitably
think of such figures in the same context as Fielding's characters, gives them at least a degree of moral
weight.
Joseph has heeded Adams's teaching that 'Chastity is as great a Virtue in a Man as in a
Woman'(I,ch.10,p.41). The fact that Adams is a rather ardent husband may be amusing in this context but it
reminds us that he is not advocating cold or prudish chastity but scriptural chastity, which celebrates
sexuality within marriage. Joseph is an attractive young man and feels natural passion for his beloved but
endeavours to live according to the Christian precept of chastity, which is different from the superficial code
of chastity in vogue during the eighteenth century, which was concerned with reputation and property, rather
than morality. See for eg IV,ch.7,p.274: the Ravisher 'tore her Handkerchief from Fanny's Neck' and so she
stands 'bare-neck'd in the Presence of Joseph'. He is divided between 'the greatest Delight which the Organs
of Sight were capable of conveying to his Soul' and respecting her embarrassment, 'so truly did his Passion
for her deserve the noble Name of Love'(IV,ch.7,p.274). Adams lectures Joseph about his desires: 'All
Passions are criminal in their Excess, and even Love itself, if it is not subservient to our Duty, may render us
blind to it'(p.277). Adams tells him his love 'savours too much of the Flesh'(p.279) but Mrs Adams retorts, 'A
Wife hath a Right to insist on her Husband's loving her as much as ever he can', reminding him, 'I am certain
you do not preach as you practise...you have been a loving and a cherishing Husband to me'(p.280).
As the novel progresses, Joseph matures and takes the role of hero, although never as convincingly as
Richardson's Sir Charles Grandison. Joseph's presentation is double-edged: his apparent heroism is
sometimes undercut by humour. When the huntsmen encourage their hounds to chase Adams, Joseph steps in
(III,ch.6,p.213). Yet his heroic potential is somewhat battered by the long paragraph telling us all about his
cudgel - we expect an immediate and dramatic account of his heroic action but first we have the history of his
cudgel! It distances us from the drama and enables us to regard things somewhat wryly. After this long and
rather gratuitous paragraph, Fielding gives us what we'd expected all along: 'No sooner had Joseph grasped
this Cudgel in his Hands, than Lightning darted from his Eyes; and the heroick Youth, swift of Foot, ran with
the utmost speed to his Friend's assistance.' Lightning may remind us of Jove and 'feet of foot' inevitably
makes us think of Achilles: the term is often applied to him in the Iliad. The references to the gods and the
heroic vocabulary would, in a different context, give Joseph heroic status but Fielding continues to undercut
this in the next paragraph. Rather than telling us what Joseph did, he gives us another digression, relegating
Joseph's 'heroic' action to a subsequent, less important, part of the paragraph. Fielding interjects, using the
royal 'we' of the magisterial author: 'we would make a Simile on this Occasion, but for two Reasons: The first
is, it would interrupt the Description, which should be rapid in this Part', although he claims, 'that doth not
weigh much, many Precedents occurring for such an Interruption', admitting that he is not averse to a little
authorial intrusion into the text! He argues that the second and most important reason for not giving a simile
is 'that we could find no Simile adequate to our Purpose'(p.213) to show 'the Idea of Friendship, Courage,
Youth, Beauty, Strength, and Swiftness'(pp.213-4). Lest we take his comments at face value, he gives us a
warning by using language which is increasingly over the top: these qualities 'blazed' in Joseph, whom he
likens to lions, tigers 'and Heroes fiercer than both', ultimately commenting that Joseph is 'above the reach of
any simile'(p.214).
Fielding describes the 'battle' between Adams, Joseph and the dogs with a variety of little asides,
comically concluding, 'Thus far the Muse hath with her usual Dignity related this prodigious Battle, a Battle
we apprehend never equalled by any Poet, Romance or Life-writer whatever, and having brought it to a
Conclusion she ceased; we shall therefore proceed in our ordinary Style'(pp.214-5). The style is deliberately
inflated to the point of comedy: it is not 'dignified'. The battle is of course not 'prodigious' - the sort of word
one would use to describe the Greek gods and their battles. Joseph is a kind young man helping his friend -
there is nothing unusually impressive about the way he does so. By comparing Joseph and his exploits to the
gods, Fielding parodies the aforesaid divine exploits and by use of inflated vocabulary, renders Joseph rather
absurd, albeit affectionately. Even the dogs have names reminiscent of classical gods and heroes: Thunder
makes us think of Jove; Plunder and Wonder sound vaguely grand and rhyme comically with Thunder; the
bitch is referred to as 'Amazonian'. The whole thing degenerates into farce when Fielding returns to what he
refers to as 'ordinary style', which is suspiciously akin to that describing the battle. Significantly, their antics
threw the Squire into 'a violent fit of laughter'(p.215) and although there is some real violence, the chapter
ends with the Squire's companions commenting, 'Parson-hunting was the best Sport in the World' and
appreciating Adams's spirited defence not in terms of classical gods but as 'standing at Bay...as well as any
badger'(p.216). Fielding is clearly not advocating such attitudes but such comments lessen the impact of
potential tragedy. Fielding uses this technique on a number of occasions. Even when he rescues Fanny from
rape, we again have the over the top references to Joseph as 'like a Cannon-ball, or like Lightning...with Fire
flashing from his Eyes'(IV,ch.7,p.273).

Legal Satire

Eighteenth-century novelists were obsessed by law, particularly by its many defects, absurdities and
injustices. Their interest in law reflected public interest in legal issues, particularly trials and laws which
were known to be unjust. Fielding was in a peculiarly good position to exploit this interest because he was
trained in law. He was deeply concerned with the practice of law and the many problems within the
eighteenth-century system. Joseph Andrews dramatises the problems inherent within the legal system, in
particular, the bias of the system in favour of the rich and influential (for a discussion of the issue of rank, see
II,ch.13,pp.140-2) and the role of those working within the system, for eg Justices of the Peace.
Fielding's narrative technique is rather similar to his role as magistrate: he controls the narrative,
intervening when he sees fit with a profoundly authoritarian, albeit benevolent voice. He punishes and
rewards characters, not necessarily as the law would in reality but in accordance with the laws of comic
romance: when Joseph 'steals' a twig, he is in danger of being imprisoned and in reality, he might be
sentenced, but within the world of the novel, Joseph must be rescued from danger. Heroes suffer hardship but
must ultimately reach happiness, usually in the form of marriage to a virtuous woman, for example,
Fielding's Tom Jones marries Sophia. Marriage within the world of romance has always represented harmony
in both personal and social terms - it's a reconciliation of personal and social goals.
This traditional harmony is nearly frustrated by the pedlar's story of Fanny's parents. He tells us that a
woman he lived with was once a gypsy and kidnapped a child from the Andrews family. Sir Thomas, Lady
Booby's late husband, bought Fanny when she was about 3 years old from this pedlar. They all assume she's
Joseph's sister. Booby tells Joseph that 'if he loved Fanny as he ought, with a pure Affection, he had no
Reason to lament being related to her'. Adams fatuously 'began to discourse on Platonic Love' while 'Pamela
and her husband smiled on one another'(IV,ch.13,p.297), seemingly sneering. Joseph and Fanny determine
that 'if they found themselves to be really Brother and Sister, they vowed a perpetual Celibacy, and to live
together all their Days, and indulge a Platonick Friendship'(IV,ch.15,p.303). Mr and Mrs Andrews differ
amusingly about the number of their children: she gave birth to a daughter while he was at sea and the
gypsies took this child and left a sickly boy in exchange. She looked after him as if he was her own, calling
him Joseph. When her husband came home she said nothing 'for fear you should not love him as well as I
did'(p.305). Joseph has a birthmark on his chest in the shape of a strawberry. Mr Andrews, 'a comical sly old
Fellow' who 'very likely desired to have no more Children than he could keep', comments, 'you have
proved...that this Boy doth not belong to us...how are you certain that the Girl is ours?'(p.305). This is not the
way Mr Andrews is presented in Pamela, where he is a pious and venerable man. Joseph was stolen from
'Persons of much greater Circumstances than those he had hitherto mistaken for' parents (p.306). He happens
to be Mr Wilson's son.
One of the functions of comedy is as a form of social critique. Fielding's comic muse may demand
that certain characters are rewarded and others punished, in accordance with romance tradition, but this does
not negate the serious social and legal criticism made en route. The fact that the magisterial author has to
intervene is in itself a criticism of the law, which should dispense justice itself. Fielding's comic eye can be
rather stern: the reader's conscience is directed by Fielding's satiric onslaught and, in the case of the legal
system, we are given specific legal reference to ensure that we read the situation correctly.
It is perhaps difficult to do justice both to Fielding's humour and to his legal concerns, but we need
not see them as incompatible: Fielding uses humour to gain the reader's sympathy for his ideas, to sustain
interest, to surprise and of course to entertain. Fielding seems to see the humorous potential in most
situations; but although he revelled in comic irony, he also wrestled with the most serious socio-legal
problems of his day, not only as a magistrate but as a writer.
Fielding mounts a sustained attack on the judicial system and its members in Joseph Andrews. When
Joseph is beaten and stripped by robbers, we are presented with an amusing dramatic debate on the laws of
evidence and theft. One of the robbers is caught and searched by the mob. They find Joseph's precious 'Piece
of Gold' but they 'find nothing...likely to prove any Evidence'. The clothes he stole from Joseph are found in
a ditch and 'the Mob were very well satisfied with that Proof'(I,ch.14,p.57) but the law regards it as
insufficient.
The surgeon explains to the frustrated crowd that the clothes 'could not convict him, because they
were not found in his Custody'(p.57). Barnabas comments that they are 'Bona Waviata'(p.58). Bona Waviata
was the term used to describe stolen goods which had been thrown away by the thief in his flight, for fear of
being apprehended. They were forfeited to the King or the Lord of the Manor, his representative, as a
punishment to the owner, for not pursuing the felon. Both the Surgeon and Barnabas reflect popular interest
in the law. Fielding comments amusedly, 'The Surgeon drew his Knowledge from those inestimable
Fountains, called the Attorney's Pocket-Companion, and Mr Jacob's Law-Tables' and that 'Barnabas trusted
entirely to Wood's Institutes'(I,ch.15,p.61), all of which were popular legal handbooks.
Mrs Tow-wouse articulates a rather more common attitude: 'I hope the Villain...will be hanged'(p.59).
Interestingly, the two characters who know most about the law want to set the robber free, believing 'there
was no Evidence against him'. Ironically, it is the ignorant Betty's common sense which triumphs over the
musings of the pseudo-lawyers. She reminds them 'they had over-looked a little Piece of Gold' and 'every one
now concluded him guilty'(p.58). Fielding enjoys exposing ludicrous legal situations but this does not lessen
his concern.
Lawyers and Justices proved popular butts for criticism throughout the century and Fielding
comments on them with the same comic satiric zeal and profound misgivings that Swift and later Sterne do.
In Joseph Andrews Scout is presented rather bitterly as 'one of those Fellows, who without any Knowledge of
the Law, or being bred to it, take upon them, in defiance of an Act of Parliament, to act as Lawyers...They are
the Pests of Society, and a Scandal to a Profession, to which indeed they do not belong'(IV,ch.3,pp.255-6) -
after 1730 lawyers had to serve 5 years as clerks to lawyers. Fielding was deeply concerned by the lack of
professionalism among so-called lawyers; this concern finds expression in comic form in his fiction.
Fielding was acutely aware of the power of individuals within the legal system and the abuses it led
to. One Justice who brings irony to his title 'Justice', regards the 'Examination' of Adams and Fanny for
supposed robbery as 'good Sport'(II,ch.11,p.130) and clearly behaves contrary to law. He exceeds his
authority when he accuses Adams of 'robbing in the Dress of a Clergyman' telling him, 'your Habit will not
entitle you to the Benefit of the Clergy'(p.131). The 'witty Spark['s]' challenge to Adams 'to cap
Verses'(p.131) is a satirical presentation of early trials where clergy had to prove that they knew Latin in
order to gain Benefit of Clergy, which would lessen the punishment from execution to a fine or transportation
depending on the crime. The absurdity of this exploitation of a law originally designed to protect the clergy
but now available to fops like 'the witty Spark' is clear in this travesty of a court scene.
The Justice is reminded by his clerk 'that it would be proper to take the Deposition of the Witnesses'.
Fielding is presumably lampooning Justices who, due to ignorance of the law, had to rely on their clerks, who
had at least some legal training. The clerk writes down the depositions while the Justice 'crack[s] Jests on
Poor Fanny'(p.130), which is indicative of his irresponsible attitude towards his legal powers. The Justice
pays lip service to legal procedure and swears in the witnesses but does not listen to the evidence or read the
depositions, presumably providing a comment on those Justices who were so inept that the evidence might as
well have remained unread. He intends to imprison them without hearing their case, saying 'you will be asked
what you have to say for your self, when you come on your Trial'(p.132). This may seem reasonable enough
but Fielding assumes that we are familiar with the role of Justices and know that if a Justice decided after
interviewing the accused that there were insufficient grounds for a prosecution, he could discharge the
accused.
The Justice tells Adams, 'if you can prove your Innocence at Size', or the Assizes (county courts), 'you
will be found Ignoramus', the term written on the back of indictments by juries finding insufficient evidence
for prosecution. He concludes fatuously, 'and so no harm done'. Adams expostulates, 'Is it no punishment,
Sir, for an innocent Man to lie several Months in Goal?'(p.132), a situation Godwin deplores at the end of the
century in Caleb Williams (1794). It is worth remembering that it was possible to die in prison before the
case came to trial. Fielding's disgust is equally evident but he exposes the system satirically, encouraging us
to condemn the Justice in a trial by humour, where his own absurdity and ineptitude condemn him. The
Justice is a caricature based on faults Fielding must have witnessed in Justices he met: 'I have writ little more
than I have seen'(III,ch.1,p.168).
Fielding's presentation here is clearly comic, for example when a man tells Fanny that 'if she [has] not
provided herself a great Belly, he [is] at her service'(p.130). Women due to be executed who could prove
pregnancy were allowed to live until they had given birth. The hope was that by this time, they would have
been able to arrange a pardon. It was not uncommon for men in prison to offer to make women pregnant - it
could save their lives. Beneath the sexual humour there is a serious threat of execution. The comment is in
fact no less harsh than telling Adams he may 'be exalted above the Heads of the People'(p.131), not in his
usual position of cleric but on the scaffold.
Adams and Fanny are ultimately freed due to the intervention of the Squire, whose rank impresses the
Justice sufficiently for him to give them a fair hearing. The Squire frightens him by telling him that Adams is
indeed a clergyman and of known good character. The Justice is clearly not sufficiently inept to be unaware
of Adams's right to Benefit of Clergy at least. The Justice immediately becomes more conciliatory on hearing
of Adams's rank and he gives him a hearing exactly in line with the procedure he flouted earlier, listening to
Adams 'uninterrupted', only asking him to 'repeat those Parts which seemed to him most material.' This new
found adherence to legal procedure is of course undercut by Fielding's explanation that he 'believed every
Syllable of his Story on his bare Affirmation', despite 'Depositions on Oath to the contrary'(p.133), replacing
one bias by another. He closes this preposterous trial with a flurry of judicial action, threatening to 'bind [his
men]...over to their good behaviour'(p.134), that is, to keep the peace, if they do not find the perjurer and
bring him to justice. The incident is clearly a comic device but aristocratic influence was a major force within
the judicial system. It is reasonable to assume that the Justice represents the attitudes of others within the
legal system and that Fielding, like Adams, is questioning the equity of a system based on class rather than
justice.
Joseph and Fanny are later put 'on trial' for so-called larceny or theft. We may be tempted to assume
that the Justice's knowledge of law is as impressive as his spelling: he writes that he is 'on of his Magesty's
Justasses of the Piece'(NB spelling! IV,ch.5,p.259). Yet it is the law which is absurd rather than the Justice.
Joseph's crime is that he 'with a Nife cut one Hassel-Twig, of the value...of 3 half pence'(p.259). The Squire
asks, 'would you commit two Persons to Bridewell for a Twig?' and the lawyer replies, 'Yes...with great
Lenity too; for if we had called it a young Tree they would have been both hanged'(p.259). This outrageous
comment is not simply comic but darkly satirical as a specific reflection of the outrageousness of law, which
made cutting down a cherry tree for example, punishable by death. The comedy proves to be rather dark
when the Justice declares 'I believe I must order them a little Correction too, a little Stripping and
Whipping'(p.258). Eighteenth-century readers would have known the barbarity of such punishments.
One of the most popularly hated sets of laws were those concerning settlement, that is, laws which
determined which parish was responsible for maintaining the poor. It was usually the parish in which one
was born but one could also gain settlement by marriage. Lady Booby argues against Joseph's marriage
ostensibly 'to prevent the Increase of Beggars'(IV,ch.3,p.255), arguing that he 'is a Vagabond, and he shall
not settle here'. Lawyer Scout explains, 'any Person who serves a Year, gains a Settlement in the Parish
where he serves'(ch.2,p.252). Lady Booby's amusing arrogance is presumably a satiric comment on upper
class attitudes: 'if this be your Law, I shall send to another Lawyer'. Scout argues, apparently representing
legal integrity, 'if she sent to a hundred Lawyers, not one nor all of them could alter the Law.' This is
immediately and comically undercut by his next sentence: 'The utmost that was in the power of a Lawyer,
was to prevent the Law's taking effect'(p.254).
Fielding's cutting satiric slant also embraces the ludicrous intricacies of the law itself: 'there is a
material Difference between being settled in Law and settled in Fact'(p.254). Scout warns that 'When a Man
is married, he is settled in Fact; and then he is not removeable'(p.255). He argues that the law is 'deficient in
giving us any such Power of Prevention', to stop the poor marrying and gaining a settlement but promises
that 'the Justice will stretch it as far as he is able, to oblige your Ladyship'(p.255). Scout's legal explanations
are accurate but his sycophancy and inhumanity in interpreting law betray serious flaws in the working of the
Settlement Laws.

To sum up:
Joseph Andrews is a satire of Pamela and the ideals of chastity she represents. As such, he is part of a
long running and very important debate concerning the true nature of virtue and, indirectly, the issue of
marriage for economic reasons. Joseph and Fanny marry for love, resisting the pressure from Squire Booby
and Pamela, who are against the marriage for purely snobbish reasons.
The novel is a satire influenced by the picaresque and, as such, provides the reader with a variety of
diverting adventures, through which Fielding is able to comment on social issues: marrying for money
(Leonora), gambling (Mr Wilson) inheritance (Wilson) and of course charity (Adams versus Trulliber), the
social divisions of rank and the attendant privileges, ineptitude and corruption within those representing the
legal system and injustice manifested within the laws themselves.
On the one hand, Fielding wants us to laugh at our follies and those of our fellow man; on the other,
he expects us to be moved by the injustices he presents. We can try to pin this novel down and find its
'meaning' but if we concentrate on it too much, we will miss the playful humour. If we simply enjoy the
comedy, we will miss some very serious and useful socio-legal comment. We just can't win - and I'm not sure
Fielding would want us to.

© Dr Beth Swan, www.english-lecturer.co.uk