Dr Deeba Shireen

Assistant Professor

Department of English

Amar Singh College

Course: 2nd Semester, CC2

British Literature 2nd.

Joseph Andrews as a Parody of Pamela:

Fielding’s novel engages itself with Samuel Richardson’s Pamela (1740). However,
it has to be borne in mind that An Apology for the Life of Mrs. Shamela Andrews
(1741) by Fielding is a more direct and stronger text that contests the subject
matter of Pamela.

Definition of Parody:

The imitative use of the words, style, attitude, tone and ideas of an author in such
a way as to make them ridiculous. This is actually achieved by exaggerating
certain traits, using more or less the same technique as the cartoon caricaturist
uses. As a branch of satire, its purpose may be corrective as well as derisive
Parody is difficult to accomplish where there has to be a subtle balance between
close resemblance to the original and a deliberate distortion of its principle
characteristics. It is, therefore a minor form of literary art which is likely to be
successful only in the hands of writers who are original and creative themselves.

To treat male chastity with seriousness with which Richardson treated female
chastity is to treat it comically. A reformed rake (squire B) who is the so-called
hero of Pamela, makes the best husband but a girl (Clarissa) who has once lost her
virtue, even in the most minimal technical sense, is undone forever. Fielding’s
main purpose is not, however, to criticize this view but to develop his own view
on the different between real and supposed virtue, between true goodness and
public esteem. For Richardson, virtue and reputation went together, except for
unhappy incidents (Clarissa); for Fielding they rarely go together for virtue is a
matter of innate disposition and intention—the good heart—rather than of public
demonstration, and the signs of morality which are publicly approved bear little
relationship, or else related in inverse proportion to real goodness.

The exposure of affectation, as when lustful women pretend to be chaste or

selfish and greedy landlords pretend to be charitable or wordly and self seeking
clergymen claim to be thinking of only Christian virtues and to be motivated only
by spiritual ideals, is indeed a source of comic in Fielding. But it is not the only or
the most important source. Hypocrisy is an old fashioned butt of satirists and
Fielding had done nothing more than write satirical novels. Concerned with
exposing the difference between what his characters really were and what they
pretended to be, his works would have been neither original nor especially
interesting but had learnt something from Swift about the art of mock heroic in
exposing the difference between what men are and what they think they are or
claim to be, and something from Cervantes in exploring the relationship between
privately good and the publically ridiculous, with the result that in Joseph
Andrews he produces a novel in which the dangers of convention and the
ambiguities of innocence are exposed for the first time in English fiction.
Richardson, it is true, had shown an awareness of the gap between what Pamela
was really doing and what she thought she was doing; in her letters there is clear
evidence of self deception; but Richardson is content merely to indicate his
awareness of this and to pursue it no further. It neither invalidates Pamela’s
claims to supreme virtue nor allows any play of the comic spirit. But for Fielding
these ambiguities and contradiction are the essence of the novel and the true
stuff of the comedy.

 Joseph Andrews as a Comic Epic Poem in prose:

Fielding termed Jospeh Andrews as a “comic epic poem in prose” in the Preface of
the book. Fielding claimed to have laid his hands on a new genre of writing but
this was not entirely accurate. There was a long tradition of such writing before
him, though it was not completely developed or established. According to
Aristotle, Homer had produced a “comic epic in verse”, namely Margites. Fielding
has only combined the ideal of ‘comic epic’ and the ‘prose epic’ to produce what
he termed as ‘comic epic poem in prose’. In his preface, he explains in detail the
inauguration of a hybrid genre and makes explicit his desire to blend the high and
the low. It is also significant that Fielding makes his own work as “comic romance”
and he draws attention to his own extensive use of burlesque and parody, for by
those means he allies himself with Cervantes—the author of the greatest comic
romance of all. Fielding also makes it clear in the preface that the “classical
reader” will recognize the mock heroic element in his work.

A heroic epic has a conspicuous hero, grand theme, continuous action, a journey
to underworld, wars, digressions, discovery, high seriousness, a high moral
lesson and bombastic diction. It is important to note that Joseph Andrews is not
an epic but a mock epic. There is an ordinary hero, a journey from one place to
another place, mock-wars (the battle between the travelers and the hounds in
book 3rd, Chapter 4th), digressions, discovery, humour, a high moral . So, it can be
termed as a ‘comic epic poem in prose’. We can also call “Joseph Andrews”
as “The Odyssey on the road” because both the works,
Homer’s “Odyssey” and Fielding’s “Joseph Andrew” in the first place involve a
journey. Like Odysseus, Joseph Andrews after the displeasure of a lady, who is
superior from him in position and power, sets out on his way home and meets
with many misfortunes on the way by the lady who has fallen in love with him. So
it would be fairly justified to call “Joseph Andrews” an “Odyssey on the
road”. Hence it is a ‘comic epic poem in prose’ as well.

Unlike a heroic epic, the hero of “Joseph Andrews” is an ordinary boy. He is

a foot-man of Lady Booby who has fallen in love with him. But Joseph is
very innocent and virtuous. Therefore, he leaves the service of the Lady and goes
to meet his beloved Fanny. On the way he has to face many hardships.
Though the action of the novel is not as great as the action of an epic yet it is
enough to term the novel a comic epic. Joseph sets out from London to
Somersetshire to see Fanny. On the way, Joseph crosses many roads, highways,
country sides, stays at many inns and meets many people; all this constitute a big
action. Through the journey of Joseph, Fielding satirizes the society of the day and
ridicules them. The corrupt and hypocritical clergy, Parson Trilluber and Parson
Barnabas, individual like Lady Booby and Mrs. Slipslop, the Squire of Fools and the
Squire of False Promises have been satirized.

The element of wars is very important in an epic and it is no exception in “Joseph

Andrews”. We see a war took place in an inn where Joseph was insulted by the
host. Parson Adams was annoyed and challenged the host. There started the first
war between both the parties. Soon Mrs. Slipslop and landlady also joined in the
battle. There are many other epical elements in the novel to call it a comic epic.

Another epic convention is the use of digression. There are two major digressions
in “Joseph Andrews”. There are, seemingly, irrelevant stories of Leonara and Mr.
Wilson. Epic writers considered them as embellishments. Fielding, however,
makes the interpolations thematically relevant. For, these are not irrelevant in
reality.

The formula of discovery, as described by Aristotle, an essential element of an

epic, has also been used by Fielding. In the end of the novel, we see that Joseph is
recognized to be Mr. Wilson’s child and Fanny as the sister of virtuous Pamela.

High seriousness is an important element in epic. But in “Joseph Andrews” there

is a great deal of comedy and humour, because it is a comic epic novel. But
behind this comedy, there lies a serious purpose of reformation. We have
a gamut of vain and hypocritical characters in Parson Trilluber, Parson Barnabas,
passengers in the stage-coach, Mr. Tow-wouse, Mrs. Slipslop, Peter Pounce and
the various Squires. The surgeon and the lawyer and the magistrate are also some
other example of hypocrisy and vanity. Each of these characters provides a great
deal of humour and amusement under a serious purpose.

Every epic has a moral lesson in it and this is no exception with a comic epic.
Fielding’s views on morality are practical, full of common sense and tolerance,
liberal, flexible and more realistic. These are devoid of prudish and rigid codes.
Fielding wanted to tear the veil of vanity and hypocrisy. In a typical way of the
neo-classical age, Fielding couples instruction with entertainment.

The use of grand, bombastic and elevated language is an important element in an

epic. It has heroic diction. But in “Joseph Andres” we see that Fielding has used
prose for poetry because it brings us close to the real and actual life and it is much
more suitable for Fielding’s purpose of dealing with human nature. However, his
use of prose is very good, up to the mark and apt for his novel.

So, we can conclude that the theory of the ‘comic epic poem in prose’ as
described by Fielding in the preface of “Joseph Andrews” manifests itself in the
novel. Fielding has assimilate the rules and adapted them to his way of writing so
well that we are not consciously aware of the formal principles which give unity to
his materials. According to Thornbury, “Joseph Andrews” by Fielding is:

“An art which conceals art, but is the art of a conscious artist.”It is true that
in “Joseph Andrews”, the scale is not as large as one can except in an epic, though
it has all other elements of a ‘comic epic poem in prose’, as claimed by Fielding.

 Realism in Joseph Andrews:

Henry Fielding was the pioneer of realism in English fiction. Both Fielding and
Richardson were broadly speaking realists. Fielding also reacted against
Richardson’s sentimentalism as a falsifying influence on the study of reality,
although he does not reject sentimentalism altogether. Fielding is one of the few
writers who, despite the wideness of their scope are capable of observing the
demands of reality with perpetual ease. His novels hold up to view a
representative picture of his age. He is as authentic a chronicler of his day as
Chaucer was of the later fourteenth century. Fielding’s truth is not the crude and
bitter. A.R. Humphreys observes: “fielding’s is the higher and more philosophical
truth which epitomizes the spirit, the ethos, as well as the body, of the time which
deals primarily not in externals but in the nature of man and in an intellectual and
moral code.”
Fielding makes the smallest effort to disguise his fiction as reality itself. A narrator
who interrupts his narrative to tell us what will happen to his characters has
clearly resigned any claim on our credulity. Unlike Defoe and Richardson, Fielding
keeps us consciously distanced from his characters, however much we may
recognize them as real human beings. By glorifying in his own artifice, Fielding can
glorify as an ordered, shaped, satisfying construct (like journalism). The
coincidences in his plot, the saving hand of providence, the nick-of-time escapes;
these suggest something far removed from realism, something more like an
exemplary moral tale, presided over by an artist who resembles a providential
deity. Fielding seems to have been more concerned with the moral issues: to
confront them is to confront major issues in everyday life. The subject, therefore,
is appropriate for realism, but the treatment is not. Fielding has presented before
us various facets of England of his time – the coaches, squires, inn-keepers of
England, the England just before Industrial Revolution. Then there is the landed
gentry represented by Lady Booby and her husband. Lawyers, doctors and
clergymen, both good and bad, are there in the novel. We have a sketchy
representation of the aristocracy in the character of Beau Didapper. Fielding
portrays the universal traits of human nature through these characters. During
their journey, Joseph and Adams generally encounter selfishness, villainy and
corruption. Once when Joseph, after being robbed, stripped and beaten, was lying
in a ditch the occupants of the carriage were not ready to help him. It was only
when the young lawyer suggested they might be held responsible if the man died.
They took him to save their own skin.
There was a difference between the higher and lower class, which fielding depicts
through the character of Lady Booby. She could not think in her wildest dreams of
allowing a seat to Parson Adams at her table as she did not consider him to be
well-dressed. Fielding also highlights the mockery of law in the hands of the so
called high class and also the prevailing corruption. The character of Lawyer Scout
illustrates the corruption. Even the law was manipulated to favour the rich. All the
characters of Fielding are so full of life because they are drawn from life itself.
They are a product of the author’s keen eye observing his contemporary society.
Fielding effuses realism into his characters and his vivid dialogues. He presents
before us the complete reality and does not intentionally ignore anything. In his
Preface Fielding writes that he has “scarce a character or action produced which I
have not taken from my own observations and experience.” That is why it is said
about Joseph Andrews that it lives by the virtue of the extraordinary vitality of its
characters and picture it gives of the manners of early eighteenth century
England.