Adriana Andrasz
One of the main points of Henry Fielding’s Joseph Andrews is to describe the sexually oppressed society in which the author was living. Fielding exposes the sexually immoral society that hides behind riches and social status. Joseph Andrews tries to educate the public that right and moral sexual behavior can lead to happiness for both the rich and the poor. The work is laced with stories about desires and virtue, and it is sexuality that is key in Fielding’s novel about life.
Joseph Andrews resonates with Fielding’s own life experiences in the English society. At the age of twenty-one, in 1728, Henry Fielding began his literary career. His writing attitude was always the same: “whatever is wicked, hateful, absurd, or ridiculous, must be exposed and punished before this Nation is brought to that Height of Purity and good Manners to which I wish to see it exalted.” Fielding felt a responsibility to bring judgment and intelligence to bear on human behavior. “He saw himself as a guardian of intellectual and moral standards in a world which seemed increasingly to ignore or distort them.”
In 1741, Fielding published Shamela as a response to Samuel Richardson’s Pamela. Fielding criticized Richardson for imposing false standards on an impressionable society. Shortly after this, in 1742, he followed Shamela with his first novel, Joseph Andrews. Both of these seemed to be a comical counterpart of Pamela, but Joseph Andrews conveyed a stronger message to the society about the injustices of social labeling and also reflected Fielding’s views on sexuality. Fielding’s ideas about sex were very liberal: he felt the societal attitude was unnatural, prudish, and harmful because it did not reflect reality. He showed this in Joseph Andrews by making his characters adapt ridiculous extremes of sexual behavior. Although their adventures are comical, they unveil a double-faced society, one whose morals have been corrupted by restrictions on their sexuality. Impossible to achieve restrictions set impossible to achieve standards, and such rules make the characters even more immoral because they have to pretend to be what they are not, just to be accepted by society. Fielding saw this sexual corruption going on around him throughout his life.
In Joseph Andrews, Mr. Wilson’s memoir is drawn from Fielding’s own “rather embittered knowledge of London life.” Wilson serves “as the novel’s central norm of sensible humanity.” Fielding introduces Wilson as a balance to bring equilibrium between the moral and the immoral characters in Joseph Andrews. Wilson lives his early life in utter indecency and sexual immorality. It is not that he desires to live this type of existence, he tries to change and become a moral person; society, however, throws him one set of circumstances to trade in for another set of circumstances. “Wilson becomes caught up in the machinery of Fortune. Prosperity changes to Adversity, and he sinks to a nadir of despair.” When he falls in love, he becomes the person he is happy to be. His relationship with Mrs. Wilson is a very loving one. They decide to retire early and live a good life with their children, away from the immoral life of the big city. Wilson, in his struggle to become a good man, faces many obstacles, and this is when he questions the rules of society. He is not a perfect man, by any means, and does many things he is ashamed of, but his character is less eccentric and closer to reality than the characters of other good men in Joseph Andrews. Wilson, as a young man, did not have a moral father figure to guide him, which made his life very difficult. He had to find out for himself the right way to live. Fielding emphasizes the importance of guidance and the effects of a lack of guidance or a poor one. A set of rules to live by is only effective if the one preaching those rules lives by them himself.
Joseph is a comical character because he illustrates a man who, at that point in time, would not exist. Instead, Joseph’s characteristics represent everything that was desired and expected of women at that time. Fielding uses Joseph to create a comparison between sexual attitudes of men and women. As the story unfolds, an interesting pattern develops in the behaviors of the two sexes. Men seem to be in total control of their sexuality. Joseph chooses to save himself and his virginity. Mrs. Booby, Mrs. Slipslop, and even Betty try to seduce him, but he walks away form the temptation. Although Joseph is thrown out on the streets, his chastity is never seriously threatened. Fannie, however, who also has decided to save herself for her true love, is not given that same choice. She is attacked by a man whom she trusts, and her virginity is almost violently taken away form her. If not for the bravery of Parson Adams, she would have been raped by her attacker. Here, Fannie’s fate is decided by two men: Adams who is trying to save her virginity and the highwayman who is trying to take it away. Fannie, like most women in Joseph Andrews, plays a very passive role.
Fielding shows that women are governed by strict rules on their sexuality that is applied by religion, society, and men. Although she is a powerful woman, Mrs. Booby cannot make Joseph sleep with her. She uses threats, guilt, and pleas but in the end, she is powerless. Her maid, Mrs. Slipslop, is also unable to fill the sexual debt she claims to have. Likewise, Mrs. Tow-wouse, a woman who seems to have her husband under her heel, does not have any control over him sexually. She cannot stir her husband to lust for her, and she certainly does not have any control over Mr. Tow- wouse’s forbidden fantasies about Betty, the chambermaid. Mrs. Tow-wouse may nag him to death, but she cannot make Mr. Tow-wouse want her. When Tow-wouse catches her husband in bed with another woman, she calls Mr. Tow-wouse ungrateful and lists all the things she has given him. This may be her attempt to substitute the things that she has not been able to provide him with: beauty, love, and sex.
It is only Betty, the chambermaid, who has full control over her sexuality. She chooses her suitors and is never put in a position where she is out of control. The book states that she is approached by many men but falls for only a few. However, her desires are real and not restricted by anything or anyone. And, unlike many other characters in Joseph Andrews, Betty is able to control her desires based on the situation. When she is rejected by Joseph, Betty does not feel the rage and powerlessness Mrs. Booby and Mrs. Slipslop feel. She is hurt, but Betty decides to take her feelings somewhere else. The decision to sleep with Mr. Toot-wattle not only satisfies her physically, but it puts control back into her life.
The sharp contrast between characters in Joseph Andrews is evident in almost every relationship in the book. Adams and Trulliber represent the good and bad sides of the clergy; Slipslop and The Coachman, who represent the working class, are also contrasted in their treatment of others. Likewise, Pamela and Fanny show us that there is a difference between saving one’s virtue and living a virtuous life. Joseph Andrews, however, is superior to almost everyone else in the book. Fielding decides, though, to give his main character a flaw to prove that following one’s heart, not the rules on society, is sometimes the only moral thing to do. Joseph’s flaw is really evident when contrasted with the brains and beauty of another character: Betty, the chambermaid. The short romance of Betty and Joseph shows a new perspective on what is the moral way to act when dealing with matters of the heart.
There are many ways that beauty can be defined in this story. Beauty can represent the physical beauty of Joseph Andrews, the moral beauty of Adams, or the emotional beauty of Fanny. However, as beautiful as these characters may seem, they lack an important component that Betty possesses. This beauty she possesses can be defined as the “real” beauty of personality, a trait that makes her seem like a “real” person, not just a personification of perfection guided by rules. And, unlike Adams who possesses intellectual beauty, Betty has another trait that seems to be even more important in the world she lives in: wit. It is this knowledge of herself and others and the trust Betty puts in the decisions she makes that sets her apart and makes the reader sympathize with her more than with the other characters.
Joseph seems a little too naïve not to notice the countless “fruitless hints” that Betty is throwing at him to get his attention.8 This lack of insight may suggest that he is a little immature when it comes to games women play. After he is driven out of London, it is disappointing that he could not figure out what was going on around him, and also may suggest an “ugly” side of Joseph: the lack of brains. “If anybody is ridiculous in this comic sense, it is Joseph himself.” When Joseph finally does figure out Betty’s true intentions, the manner in which he handles the situation is neither beautiful nor moral. One of the reasons why Betty is driven into the arms of another is not because Joseph turns her down, but because he makes her feel terrible about herself. If Joseph was really a good person, one who was in touch with his feelings and the feelings of others, he would have realized that being just a little nicer to Betty and letting her off easier would have been more virtuous than saving his virtue. It is refreshing that Betty does not decide to seriously consider that maybe, like Joseph said, she did “cast off all regard to modesty” and that maybe she is, in fact, “indecent.” Instead, Betty decides to comfort herself in the very thing Joseph found so disturbing about her: her sexuality. When she is caught sleeping with her employer, Betty finds herself in Joseph’s shoes when he declined to sleep with his employer. Just like Joseph, Betty loses her job but keeps her right to choose. Betty seems to be Fielding’s view of sexual freedom and the personification of sexual beauty and worldly morality.
Now, one may argue that Betty is just as immoral and lustful as Lady Booby or Slipslop; however, Betty never tries to pass herself off as someone superior to Joseph, nor does she try to conceal her feelings before or after Joseph rejects her. Betty’s relationship with Joseph is very honest, unlike the hypocritical ties between Joseph and Slipslop and Lady Booby. Here, Fielding is making an interesting point: being a good person and living a virtuous life does not mean that one has to abandon all personality traits and turn them in for a list of rules. This episode tells us that sometimes doing something that is prescribed as right may not always be the best thing for everyone. Following rules and not one’s own heart may hurt others, but most of all, it hurts the individual who hides behind images of what society tells him to be. And, above all, the individual never gets to know or share who he really is.
The themes of honesty, openness, loyalty and decency in sexual attitudes and everyday life seem to be valued greatly by Fielding and form the backbone of Joseph Andrews. Fielding’s ideas on sex are revolutionary and bold. Fielding believes that our sexuality is at the core of all of our other behaviors, and that those who are immoral in their sexuality will continue to be immoral in other aspects of their lives. By sexuality or sex, Fielding does not just mean the physical nature of sex. Joseph Andrews is not concerned with the actual physical nature of sexuality, but its moral nature. This point is evident when Fanny and Joseph finally are left alone on their wedding night and the author decides to do the same, leaving “this happy couple to enjoy the private rewards of their constancy.” Fielding seems to suggest that sex is when we are the most honest with ourselves and others. Our desires, fears, and insecurities are brought out for others to share and judge. But, it is only in a relationship that is open and honest can we really see and appreciate others and ourselves.
The beauty of Joseph Andrews is that the lesson it teaches is timeless and can be applied to any situation. Today, society is bombarded with images that are sexually charged, yet, curiously, people are expected to
maintain a Puritanical state of mind, much like Fielding’s society almost three hundred years ago. Young girls and boys are pressured by MTV stereotypes, religious commandments, and parental expectations, long before they have the skills or moral foundation to deal with or even recognize their own needs and wants. This confusion and the need to satisfy both
themselves and the rest of the world can lead them down a road of lies and deception which continues into adulthood. The masquerade does not only continue in their sexual habits, but it is also reflected in their relationships with neighbors, coworkers, and in their relationships with their children. Kids learn from parents, and if hypocrisy is on the lesson plan, it is hypocrisy that will manifest itself in the minds and hearts of our society, generation after generation. The world we live is a bundle of insecurities, lies, and unfulfilled expectations. But what can be done? Fielding teaches us
that there is no real perfection, but being honest and moral toward others and ourselves can lead us on a path that will help us to be better as individuals, which, in turn, will help us build a better society. Joseph Andrews’ voice is a simple one but it can literally change the world by changing our minds.
Works Cited
Banerji, H. K. Henry Fielding, His Life and Works. New York: Russell & Russell, 1962.
Battestin, Martin C. The Moral Basis of Fielding’s Art: A Study of Joseph Andrews. Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press, 1959.
Burnett, Whit. Henry Fielding’s Joseph Andrews. New York: Barns & Noble Inc., 1968.
Butt, John. Fielding. New York: Longmans, Green & Co., 1955.
Digeon, Aurelien. The Novels of Fielding. New York: Russel & Russel, 1962. Fielding, Henry. The Champion. No. 16. Saturday, December 22, 1739.
Joseph Andrews. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 1987.
Goldberg, Homer. The Art of Joseph Andrews. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1969.
Varey, Simon. Joseph Andrews: A Satire of Modern Times. Boston: Twayne Publishers, 1990.
Williams, Ioan. The Criticism of Henry Fielding. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1970.