RICHARDSON'S PAMELA AND FIELDING'S J OSEPH ANDREWSRichardson's novel Pamela, subtitled Virtue Rewarded, was immensely popular when it appeared in 1740. Richardson tells the story, through letters, of the repeated attempts of Pamela's employee, Mr. B–, to seduce her and then to rape her. Won over by her virtue and genteel delicacy, he marries her even thought she is a mere servant. In the view of many readers, this novel equates "virtue" with virginity and the reward of virtue–or managing to stay a virgin–is marriage, and the focus on seduction/rape ignores the diversity of life and of human motivation. Fielding satirized Pamela with Shamela (1741), whose heroine is a knowing, ambitious, self-centered manipulator. Then in the next year, he wrote Joseph Andrews, which is a second satire of Pamela. Why Fielding wrote two parodies of one novel is puzzling and a variety of explanations have been offered. What is clear is that, though Joseph Andrewsmay have started as a satire of Pamela, it quickly outgrew that narrow purpose and has amused generations of readers who never heard of Pamela. As Fielding indicated on the title page of Joseph Andrews, he was imitating Cervantes'sDon Quixote, so that his novel is also a picaresque novel–or novel of the road–and an adventure novel. With the introduction of Parson Adams, who has been called the first great comic hero in the English novel and one of the glories of human nature, it also becomes a novel of character. In keeping with Fielding's bent as a moralist and reformer, the satire extends beyond literary matters to society itself, and Fielding exposes the vices and follies not merely of individuals, but also of the upper classes, institutions, and society's values. THEMES IN J OSEPH ANDREWS Appearance versus reality. Who is truly virtuous, charitable, chaste, knowledgeable, just, etc. and who merely pretends to be and/or has the reputation of being so? Characters say one thing and mean another, or they act at variance with their speech. How, in Fielding's view, can the reader distinguish the person who pretends out of vanity or who is hypocritical from the truly good man/woman? Abuse of power, by individuals, classes, institutions. Inhumanity of individuals and society. Lust versus chastity. The nature of goodness. Fielding admired honesty, integrity, simplicity, and charity, believed that virtue is seen in an individual's actions, but recognized the difficulty of making moral judgments. How is the reader to judge the postilion who gave Joseph his coat but was later convicted of stealing chickens? or Betty, who is charitable and promiscuous? Nor do good men necessarily have harmonious relationships or understand each other, as is seen in Adam's interactions with the Catholic priest and the innkeeper previously hoodwinked by the "generous gentleman." Charity. (This theme is related to the issue of faith versus works.) Vanity. Are there degrees or kinds of vanity? The vanity of a Leonora is destructive, but what is the effect of Adams's vanity (his pride in his worldly knowledge derived from books, his pride in his sermons, and his pride in his excellence as a teacher)? City living versus living in retirement in the country. This was a common theme in eighteenth century literature, as it had been in classical Roman literature. Wilson's story contrasts the useless, aimless, destructive life of London with the idyllic, simple pleasures of living in the country. THE NARRATOR The narrator, the I who speaks in the novel, is a fictional persona; the narrator's character shifts from historian to creator, reporter, arbiter of morals and manners to manipulator. The narrator is not to be confused with Fielding, who is writing the novel and for whom the narrator is a device to achieve certain effects: The narrator keeps readers conscious that Joseph Andrews is a fiction. By shifting the narrator's character, Fielding reminds readers that he is telling a story whose truth lies, not in its facts, but in the accuracy with which human nature is depicted. The narrator contributes to what Ian Watt calls the novel's "realism of assessment." The fictional narrator puts distance between the reader and the pain, the suffering, and the cruelty depicted in the novel. Does the distance makes them bearable? Is distance perhaps necessary for the novel to be comic? Does the distance created by the narrator allow for greater irony at times? Note: Fielding uses other devices to control distance or the reader's involvement in the novel, for instance, the mock heroic language and epic parallels. The narrator helps unify the novel, which is a succession of unrelated incidents. The narrator contributes to the assurance with which Fielding handles his novel by talking to us in a relaxed, at-ease manner. THE READER Some critics suggest that Fielding wrote for two different kinds of readers: the first set of readers consisted of gentlemen like himself who had a classical education and similar values; the second consisted of everyone else. Only the educated would have appreciated Fielding's subtleties and learned allusions and satire. Fielding also addresses and manipulates a fictional reader in his novel by attributing certain values or attitudes to that reader. Thus the reader addressed or referred to in the novel and the narrator are both fictional characters Then, of course, there are the actual readers–us. One way that Fielding uses the fictional reader is to make us, the actual readers, aware of our own foibles, vanities, and hypocrisies . ISSUES TO CONSIDER Here are some questions you might think about as you read or review the novel: Adams has been called a moral touchstone; that is, through contact with him, other characters reveal, unintentionally and usually unperceived by Adams, their moral natures. Does he serve this function in the novel? In view the number of fights Adams becomes involved in and the farcical incidents he is the butt of (e.g., having hogs' blood dumped on him in one incident and urine in another incident), is Adams's dignity, his basic decency, or his moral authority diminished? or even canceled completely? Does Adams learn from his experiences? The title suggests that Joseph Andrews is the hero of the novel (the original title isThe History of the Adventures of Joseph Andrews and his Friend, Mr. Abraham Adams). Is he? He is certainly what we would today call the romantic lead. Is this an education novel or bildungsroman? Does Joseph grow or develop on their journey? The importance of a guide or mentor runs through the novel; both Leonora and Mr. Wilson lack a mentor to guide them and to inculcate good values. Does Adams serve as Joseph's mentor (and as a guide to his parishioners)? Does Joseph come to be more understanding or more knowledgeable than Parson Adams upon occasion? and his view more sensible? Are actions the only criterion for revealing a person's true character and moral nature? Does Fielding's practice in his novel conform to the literary theories he offers in the preface and three books? Does he, for example, exclude portrayals of vice, as he announces in the Preface? Does his theory of satire and the ridiculous (which he bases on vanity and hypocrisy) apply to Adams? The ridiculous characters are intended to make readers aware of their own vanities and hypocrisies, but would anyone reading about Slipslop or Peter Pounce identify with either? Does Fielding present characters from the inside, so that the reader knows their feelings and motives, or observe them from the outside? Are the characters presented as they see themselves, as the narrator sees them, or as Fielding sees them? FLAWS Many readers and critics find the story rambling and haphazard, its incidents neither connected to the protagonist (whether he is perceived to be Adams or Joseph) nor contributing to the denouement. The two interpolated tales of Leonora and Wilson have no necessary connection to the rest of the novel. And some find the ending unsatisfactory and disappointing. QUOTATIONS FROM CRITICS I offer these quotations to stimulate your thinking, not necessarily because they reflect my views. Mark Spilka: "Fielding always attempted to show that virtue can be a successful way of life." Maynard Mack asserts that in comedy the reader's point of view must be continuous with "not the character's but the author's." According to Andrew Wright, Fielding "elevated the novel... to the level of serious playfulness." Arthur Sherbo: "Without Parson Adams and Mrs. Slipslop, Joseph Andrews is nothing." Martin C. Battestin sees in Adams "the Christian hero, the representative of good nature and charity, which form the heart of morality." F. Homes Dudden is "impressed by the wideness of the gulf which seems to separate the classes–the ‗high people' from the ‗low people..." By modern standards, Henry Fielding's novel, Joseph Andrews, reads almost like a parody. Rather than maintaining realistic characters, they are described in a mock epic style. They are too extreme in their virtue and vice, too obviously charactetured to be a strictly realistic style or believable. We do not identify with them as we may have done with more well rounded individuals. Joseph, the hero, is described in a style that sounds more like the introduction to a play than a novel. His entire history (as far as the author claims to credibly know it) is provided, beginning with lineage. This heralds back to the classic works that Fielding sought to emulate. He is described as arising from a dunghill' (very ironic considering the high regard in which he is held), just as the Athenians sprang from the earth. Indeed, he seems almost to be one of their demigods: the lyrical description depicts a beautiful, tender, virtuous youth. He is both humble and hard working, and appears as almost an encapsulation of the author's ideal Christian. Mrs. Slipslop sharply contrasts this beautiful image. The diction in her section is courser and more prosaic. She is old, ugly, scheming, the antithesis of all that Joseph represents. She is also a somewhat humorous character: she is ridiculous and amusing. She thinks that because she has been a maiden (which is her qualification for considering herself virtuous) for so long that she can commit any sin she pleases now. Contrastingly, Joseph's dearest possession is his virtue, and he upholds it throughout many temptations. By giving his character Biblical names, Fielding has instantly created associations between his characters and their Biblical counterparts. These names can reveal characteristics and background without being explicitly explained in the text. It connects the work to something familiar and traditional that is part of our collective consciousness. Without even realizing it, we link the characters to their namesakes. Joseph's character is aligned with the Old Testament Joseph most famous for his coat of many colours. Yet the differences between the two are as important as the similarities in this case. Both Josephs are separated from their homes and families and work as servants, where both distinguish themselves through their outstanding character. Yet the Biblical Joseph is sold into slavery by his jealous brothers, whereas the novel's Joseph has only a sister. She is famous for her virtue, and he repeatedly thanks er for her excellent example. Yet his name foreshadows an unfortunate event in Andrew's life: the wife of his master (in the novel's version she is recently widowed) takes a fancy to him and tries to seduce him. When he refuses her, she strips him of his livery (although Fielding later contradicts himself on this point by repeatedly mentioning his livery) and turns him out (in the Bible, he is imprisoned on fake charges of trying to rape her). Both are reduced to the humblest circumstances (Andrews is robbed and beaten), yet their virtue and righteousness provide them with the strength to continue to a better situation than previously enjoyed. Parson Abraham Adams is an extremely good, albeit nave, man. He is described as without vice, always seeking out the best in people and treating them well. Yet his extreme goodness is also his flawhe cannot account for the failings and dishonesties that mankind is prone too, and so sets himself up to be deceived and disappointed. The Abraham of the Bible presents one of the most powerful and memorable prophets of that sacred book. He received extensive revelations and is regarded as the father of the covenant people. He is remembered for his humility and faith. In his elderly years, he and his wife still had not had a child, and they greatly desired one. After much pleading with the Lord, they were blessed with Isaac. Yet Abraham was commanded to sacrifice his beloved son on an alter. With incredible faith and submissiveness, Abraham prepared to comply with God's command. This compared directly with God the Father's loss of his beloved son, Jesus Christ. What a powerful namesake to give someone. Yet both could be seen as foolish in their extremity. Both have an excess of blind faith and humble trust. Fielding is more prone to use general types than particular characters. He uses the traditional stereotypes to tell his tale: the seductive mistress, the rude housemaid who thinks herself higher than her position, the virtuous siblings, the bumbling parson, and so forth. His story feels almost allegorical or parable-like, and these pre-packaged characters lend themselves well to this style. Everyone knows characters similar to these. These generic figures make it easier for him to apply a lesson to all of the readers. arson Adams, a representative of the good of British society, pictures himself as an emissary of light, spreading truth and civilization to the world. He envisions himself in the role of spiritual guide and wise sage, yet he contributes to the degradation of the Other. [For our purposes here, the Other can be defined as anyone outside of British society's parameters of acceptability. This includes, but is not limited to, differing religious and ethnic groups from those in political power.] Once during their travels, Adams and Andrews receive help in their time of need. Rather than simply thanking the man for his charity, Adams declares that: he was glad to find some Christians left in the kingdom; for that he almost began to suspect that he was sojourning in a country inhabited only by Jews and Turks.' This comment, though short and nonchalant, holds great significance. Nowhere in the course of the novel has Adams encountered a Jew or a Turk, and no reason is given to believe that he ever had (the novel clearly states that he had not travelled, but rather relied on the wisdom of books). The casual manner in which this and other similar remarks are integrated into dialogues suggests that not only was the Parson unaware of this insult, the author was as well. lding, as a member of the society he described, could not avoid feeling the same blind prejudices as his characters. The subtly, infrequent nature of these statements prove that it is highly unlikely that these remarks were included satirically or to spur reform, despite the nature of the novel. Fielding's style of criticism was extremely overt, and these prejudiced statements do not fit into his agenda. Although the novel includes no minority figures, the included characters constantly assert their own Christianity and personal righteousness. Fielding strips the Other of their identity. Since there is no character to embody the Jewish, Turkish, or other mentioned groups, they lack a voice within the text. Therefore the mainstream characters face no opposition in their roles of the virtuous (Fanny and Joseph), good (Adams), respected (Lady Booby), and powerful (the nobility). Yet they continue to define themselves through these roles. For example, Joseph is described, he hath in his countenance sufficient symptoms ofthat sweetness of disposition which furnishes out a good Christian.' His actions prove him to be a good Christian, but it is his face that is described thus. This angelic face contrasts the young man's dark childhood; he was kidnapped from his loving family by gipsies. Of the novel's four main characters (Joseph, Fanny, Adams, and Lady Booby) a full fifty percent of them had been kidnapped by gipsies! No positive information is given about this group, and no gipsy characters exist (excepting the unidentified characters). They seem to have no motive for the kidnappings except for the assumption that they have inferior morals. Epitomizing the novel's attitude, Mr. Wilson describes the minority group as, some wicked travelling people.' Their defining characteristic is a practice of stealing away children.' Mrs. Andrew's story expands the degrading of gipsies by juxtaposing their heathen' women with her own Christian righteousness. She explains that after graciously welcoming them into her home, she momentarily left to draw them a cup of liquor, the best I had.' Meanwhile, the gipsy women kidnap her child and disappear, leaving a sickly boy in the infant's place. By comparison, their actions seem even more ghastly. Yet Mrs. Andrews admits that she lied to her husband and never told them about their missing child, and no one in the party (not even Joseph or her husband) seem upset by her dishonesty. Her mistakes are brushed over and ignored by both the author and the fictional characters. The novel preserves the dichotomy of the familiar (good) and the unfamiliar (bad). Obviously, the gipsies occupy the latter role. Although the majority of Fielding's novel focuses on revising popular practices and beliefs, he failed in the area of accepting diverse groups. Joseph Andrews perpetuates negative conceptions of minority groups, such as non-Christians and gipsies. One of the novel's central characters, the respected Parson Adams, explains: the first care I always take, is of a boy's morals, I had rather he should be a blockhead than an atheist or Presbyterian.' A different ethnicity or religious were ideas too horrible for Adams to even mention. Adams, as would the author, defined himself with the phrase, As I am a Christian.' Fielding stood at the forefront of many issues and concerns of his time, yet he could not completely extricate his own attitude from society's problems. These prejudices were so entrenched in society that Fielding was unaware of his own pride and racism. His novel, therefore, included and supported the supposed superiority of mainstream British society over differing religious and ethnic populations. Henry Fielding is widely studied today as one of the chief begetters of the modernist movement in novel and as a master who embodied in realistic prose a panoramic survey of contemporary society. With the novelty and vitality of both their theory and structure, the writings of Henry Fielding exerted a major influence on the succeeding writers and dominated the English fiction until the end of the 19th century. Fielding‘s brilliant tour de force Joseph Andrews is an astounding encapsulation of the 18th century English social life and manners. It mirrors with rare force and realism, the blemishes of mankind in its true face. The novel, in its entirety, is an impassioned satire on the moral and social ills that beset the 18th century English society. In this novel we are confronted with a chameleonic society that frequently changes its appearance to gratify personal lusts of various kinds. The novel depicts human beings camouflaged in various shades of vanity, hypocrisy and narcissism. Here, Fielding essentially becomes a spokesman of his age and seeks to come out strongly against the affected behaviour of the so-called respectable society of the day. Fielding's portrayal of the English social life is enforced by the large canvas of representatives selected from every facets of society. The study of different characters enabled the writer to explore all the unpleasant aspects of life of his time. Fielding's exploration begins with his survey on the nature and temperament of women of his time. Women of all classes were snobbish and amorous to some extent. The sensuality of women is reflected at its best through the representatives like Lady Booby, Mrs. Slipslop and Betty. Lady Booby feels greatly attracted by Joseph‘s manliness and personality and seeks in vain to evoke his sexual response to gratify her sensual appetite. Mrs. Slipslop also follows her mistress‘ path and tries to win Joseph as a lover. Even Betty, the sympathetic maid also falls in love with Joseph and seeks in vain to have sexual gratification from him. All these amorous intentions show a fair picture of the amoral side of the 18th century society. The society that Fielding portrays in Joseph Andrews is extremely inhuman, callous, indifferent, uncharitable and narcissistic. The insensitive hardness of this society is clearly exposed in the stagecoach episode. The passengers, who are unwilling to allow Joseph into the coach on various excuses, show up their selfish and affected/artificial mentality. At that time Joseph was in a pitiable condition; he was badly wounded and was almost naked. So, he was badly in need of sympathy or help from others. Some passengers show some sympathy for him but decline to spare him a garment to cover his naked body. The only person who shows some genuine heartfelt sympathy is the poor coachman, who offers his own coat to the wretched fellow. Here Fielding shows the contrast between the attitude of the rich passengers and that of the poor coachman. Fielding tries to show us that there is a greater spirit of charity in the poor than in the rich. The incident gives ample scope to Fielding for satirising the pretences and affectations of an essentially inhuman society. Fielding also provides some glimpses of the chaotic, greedy, opportunistic and insincere sides of the 18th century society. The chaotic side is exposed by the robbery incident. It is also revealed by the incident in which a villain attempts to rape Fanny. Human greed is exposed by the characters of the surgeons and the clergymen. The surgeons were extremely selfish and money minded. They refused to treat patients who were unable to pay fees. The clergymen of the time were the most selfish and materialistic. Besides them there are also opportunists who take advantages of others'‘ unfavourable situations to gratify their personal desires. For example, the squire who is fond of hunting hares, tries to satisfy his lustful desire for Fanny taking advantages of her poor condition. The insincerity of the society is revealed by the depiction of the justices, who were as dishonest as the clergymen and the squires. Justice Frolick, for instance, goes out of his way to send Joseph and Fanny to prison, only to satisfy a whim of Lady Booby. In brief, Joseph Andrews is a fine social document that represents an inclusive picture of the 18the century English society. The novel directs its satire not only against particular individuals but also against the follies and vices of the entire society. ave always thought love the only foundation of happiness in a married state . . . and in my opinion all these marriages which are contracted from other motives are greatly criminal . . . To deny that beauty is an agreeable object to the eye . . . would be false and foolish . . . But to make this the sole consideration of marriage, to lust after it so violently as . . . to reject and disdain religion, virtue and sense . . . is surely inconsistent . . . either with a wise man or a good Christian Although Henry Fielding (1707-1754) wrote many literary works I am going to deal mainly with his major novels, Joseph Andrews, Tom Jones, Amelia, and his shorter satirical work Shamela. All of these works contain a strong moral message, but the moral message is not entirely consistent, and is presented in various ways. One of Fielding's main concerns was the question of marriage. His ideas on marriage are concisely summed up by Allworthy in his sermon on matrimony: I have always thought love the only foundation of happiness in a married state . . . and in my opinion all these marriages which are contracted from other motives are greatly criminal . . . To deny that beauty is an agreeable object to the eye . . . would be false and foolish . . . But to make this the sole consideration of marriage, to lust after it so violently as . . . to reject and disdain religion, virtue and sense . . . is surely inconsistent . . . either with a wise man or a good Christian. Although this sermon mainly condemns marriage for reasons of lust, Fielding more commonly condemns marriage for reasons of financial gain or social elevation. The way in which Fielding conveys his philosophy of marriage is different in all four works, and the virtuousness of the virtuous is variable. However, the basic message is fairly consistent. Joseph Andrews Of the works mentioned, Joseph Andrews contains the most virtuous and idealised couple; Joseph and Fanny, even if they are somewhat unrealistic. Joseph is tempted by both Lady Booby and Mrs Slipslop and refuses the advances of each of them, remaining constant in his chaste devotion to Fanny. The chastity of their love is constantly emphasised and admired by Fielding, and they are rewarded for their virtuousness with eternal happiness (it is heavily implied). Fielding writes of their union thus: Joseph remains blessed with his Fanny, whom he doates on with the utmost Tenderness, which is all returned on her side. As well as maintaining their spiritual happiness, their financial problems are solved by Mr Booby's 'unprecedented generosity' in giving Fanny a gift of two thousand pounds. Their blissful life is contrasted with the life of Lady Booby who married for financial gain. She obviously has little or no affection for her husband, which is indicated by the fact that she attempts to seduce Joseph at the beginning of the novel, and it is reiterated by Fielding at the end of the novel in these words: As for the Lady Booby, she returned to London in a few days, where a young Captain of Dragoons, together with eternal parties at cards, soon obliterated the memory of Joseph. This also suggests that her lifestyle is now rather banal and tedious in comparison to the married idyll of Joseph and Fanny. Following are some notes relating to the development of the main characters and the main plot. I have left out references to the various vain and hypocritical people Joseph and Adams encounter in their travels, but these characters, of course, are the whole point of Fielding‘s comic strategy. (page numbers refer to the Norton Critical edition) Read carefully Fielding‘s Preface in which he explains his theory of The Comic Note that he distinguishes it from The Burlesque, which is merely ―the Exhibition of what is monstrous and unnatural‖ (4). True comedy, he argues, concerns itself with the Ridiculous, which has as ―its only Source . . . Affectation‖, which in turn springs from either Vanity or Hypocrisy (6). Note Fielding‘s definition of each of these two qualities, and think as you read of how the characters and plot of Joseph Andrews carry out this theory. BOOK I Ch. 1 — The novel opens with the intrusion of the author, who explains that his purpose in writing is to answer the bestselling novel by Samuel Richardson, Pamela, which presented itself as a celebration of female virtue, but which was disdained by Fielding because he considered Pamela a manipulator and a prude. Ch. 2 — contains a detailed description of our hero, Joseph Andrews. What are his qualities? Are they realistic given his age and background? Ch. 3 — We are introduced to Mrs. Slopslop, a character similar to one invented by the comic dramatist Richard Brinsley Sheridan. In ―The Rivals,‖ he creates ―Mrs. Malaprop‖ — a pretentious woman who mangles words, often comically substituting a similar-sounding word that means the exact opposite of what she intends, i.e. ―Sure if I reprehend anything in this world, it is the use of my oracular tongue, and a nice derangement of epitaphs!‖ (3.3). Find instances when Mrs. Slipslop similarly mangles language. Ch. 8 — In a chapter that opens with ―some very fine writing‖ — mock-epic descriptions similar to those supplied by Alexander Pope in ―The Rape of the Lock‖ — we receive a detailed physical description of Joseph (as opposed to his temperament and talents) and are discussion of the question of whether there can be such a thing as ―male virtue‖ (33). Ch. 10 — Further development (from Joseph‘s point of view) of the central question: is male chastity as important as female chastity? Is there, in fact, such as thing as male virginity? Ch. 18 — Notice that, again, Fielding intrudes as narrator to observe, after Joseph has successfully fended off Betty the chambermaid‘s attempted seduction: ―How ought man to rejoice that his chastity is always in his own power that if he hath sufficient strength of mind, he hath always a competent strength of body to defend himself, and cannot, like a poor weak woman, be ravished against his will‖ (68). This raises the crucial question in the novel of whether, in fact, any man (including Joseph) has ―sufficient strength of mind‖ to overcome his passions. Note that, after the reunion of Fanny and Joseph, it is usually Fanny who reminds Joseph to be patient and chaste. BOOK II Ch. 12 — Look carefully at the physical description of Fanny (119-20). Note the ways in which Fielding observes that she is not ―fashionably‖ beautiful (i.e., slender and pale), but that her beauty is touched by nature — her white skin is sunburned where it is exposed, her teeth are ―not exactly even,‖ her face has one smallpox scar. Fielding seems to imply that small imperfections heighten one‘s appreciation of beauty more than a uniformly ―perfect‖ aspect such as Lady Booby‘s. Or to put it another way, an imperfect package implies a pure interior, while Lady Booby‘s physical perfection is an ironic mask for her inner selfishness and deceit. Ch. 13 — Joseph‘s marriage proposal illustrates his minor flaw — he is impetuous and impatient. Both Adams and Fanny have to convince him to follow the custom of announcing the date of a wedding (the ―banns‖) three weeks ahead of time. This practice developed to allow a chance for anyone with knowledge of reasons to call off the marriage (previous marriage contracts, blood relationship, etc.) to come forward. BOOK III Ch. 3 — Mr. Wilson‘s history is an example of the traditional 18th century genre known as the ―Rake‘s Progress.‖ This is usually a cautionary tale of an essentially good young man who allows himself to fall into a wasted life devoted to money and pleasure. Mr. Wilson‘s description of his day‘s ―schedule‖ (159) is typical of the time. The rake‘s selfishness and addictions escalate until he accidentally or through negligence causes death or harm to an innocent person. The traditional tale either condemns the rake to death by venereal disease or rescues him through the offices of a virtuous woman — usually the girl-next-door back home. Notice that ironically, Mr. Wilson tends to blame the women he becomes involved with (the debauched country girl who becomes a whore, p. 161, or the ―coquette‖ who makes his life miserable, p. 163) for his suffering. His redemption is a combination of luck and new resolve; notice that he must remove himself from London to save himself. His new life is a model of Augustan rural modesty and comfort. Only the loss of his son to the Gypsies (192) mars his new happiness; this fact will be significant later on. Ch. 11 — We see an example of Abraham Adam‘s Christian stoicism on p. 207-8, when he counsels Joseph to bear the loss of Fanny calmly. He takes some time to describe his philosophy, which should remind us of Johnson and Pope‘s poetic suggestions. Note that Fielding does not force Joseph to attempt this philosophy himself; Fanny is quickly and safely returned to him. BOOK IV Ch. 1 — Although the journey from London to Booby Hall is complete, there are still internal journeys to be made for each character. Fielding comically achieves this by having Joseph, Adams, Lady Booby and Mrs. Slipslop undergo frequent extremes in emotional state. Ch. 5-7 — The appearance of the famous Pamela allows Fielding to make some satirical observations about what is true and what is superficial nobility. Note that Pamela‘s husband (and Lady Booby‘s nephew-by-marriage), Thomas Booby, is a truly magnanimous person, offering his friendship and esteem to both Joseph and Fanny, considering them his equals (229). Pamela, on the other hand, takes her new-found social status for granted and is offended by Joseph and Fanny‘s rural simplicity because it reminds her of where she came from (237). Ch. 8 — After Fanny‘s attempted rape by Beau Didapper, Joseph naturally hopes to push the marriage ahead, believing that he can better protect Fanny‘s virtue as her husband. Adams again takes the opportunity to counsel Stoic acceptance of whatever misfortune may come (242). In one of the most satiric comic moments of the novel, Fielding exposes Adam‘s failure to adhere to his own philosophy when he reacts hysterically to the news that his youngest son has drowned. Joseph‘s attempts to counsel Stoic acceptance of the tragedy are angrily rejected by Adams, until the discovery that the boy is safe provokes another passionate outburst (this time of happiness) from Adams. Finally, Joseph loses his temper with Adams and seriously questions the value of the man‘s advice. It becomes Mrs. Adams‘s job to cool them both down, siding with Joseph in the opinion that a man‘s love for his wife should be as intense as his love for his children. This scene raises two important questions: 1. Does this incident reveal Adams to be hypocritical or merely vain? 2. Are we meant to agree with Fielding‘s implied endorsement of married love as the highest form of love? Ch. 12-13 — The increasing tension between Lady Booby and Joseph leads to a bombshell in which a traveling peddler leads the community to believe that Fanny is actually Joseph‘s long-lost sister, stolen by Gypsies in infancy and left with the Booby household. This is obviously good news for Lady Booby, who busily begins to rationalize that Joseph is an appropriate marriage partner. Fielding may be satirizing the tendency of romantic comedy in his time to rely on wild coincidences; this event also gives us an opportunity to contemplate the varieties of love. If Joseph is so generous and pure, as Pamela meanly points out, why is he so reluctant to love Fanny only as a sister, instead of as a wife? Ch. 14 — This is the comic climax of the novel, in which darkness and vanity lead several characters to embarrass themselves. Beau Didapper attempts to crawl into Fanny‘s bed to rape her, but ends up in the amorous Mrs. Slipslop‘s bed instead. Adams, hearing Beau‘s high-pitched cries for help as the disappointed Slipslop attacks him, attempts once again to play the hero but fails, beating up Mrs. Slipslop instead of Didapper (although, comically, Didapper has by now changed from rapist to victim, and is in greater need of Adams‘s protection). Adams himself becomes a victim of Mrs. Slipslop‘s indiscriminate lust, and escapes into the wrong room, ending up in the originally-intended target bed, Fanny‘s. Angela Smallwood (Fielding and the Woman Question) has suggested that this scene distills various gender-related issues in the novel. She notes that the true heroes of the novel (Adams and Joseph) possess masculine and feminine qualities in balance, and that characters who come to grief (Lady Booby, Mrs. Slipslop, Beau Didapper) do so because they consistently behave in ways inconsistent with their sex. In the ―night scene,‖ Mrs. Slipslop‘s sexual aggression and Didapper‘s effeminate behavior cause Adam‘s confusion and embarrassment, heightened by his nakedness, which symbolizes his vulnerability to judging people by appearances. Ch. 15 — Following this scene of comic chaos, Fielding imposes a rather arbitrary order on the events by having Pamela‘s parents and Wilson show up at exactly the right time to clear up the confusion. Fanny and Joseph are not siblings because Joseph is the baby who was substituted for the stolen Fanny — further emphasizing the blurring of the line between masculinity and femininity. Essentially, Joseph and Fanny are male and female versions of the same person, interchangeable with one another. This is a kind of psychological incest that ironically is considered preferable by the characters in the novel to the physical kind. The news that Joseph‘s real parents are the Wilsons is also an ironic jab at Pamela, whose brother turns out to be of superior birth to her! Note that the happy ending provides financial stability for all the characters we care about. Both Thomas Booby and Mr. Wilson demonstrate the generosity and friendliness to their inferiors that Fielding associates with true (not class-based) nobility.