Henry Fielding – Tom Jones

Deed and Doer

As noted in Part II B, Fielding’s ability to convey who a character is independent of her or his deeds, or what she or he says is central to the way in which Fielding develops the narrative in Tom Jones. The reader who attempts to deduce the characters’ intentions (their “character”) from their actions (or explanations) cannot be certain of an individual’s guilt or innocence. This “externality” serves a second purpose: Fielding is drawing attention to the “narrow-minded notion that judgment should be based on the facts” at a time the “the facts” excluded direct evidence of motive or witness credibility. ³²¹ An examination of Blifil’s actions and his likely motive for releasing little Tommy indicates why being able to assess who a person is separate from what she or he does is an essential requirement for a good judge of character.

Blifil’s action in releasing little Tommy, the deed, could be as he asserts, a simple act of charity in returning a captive bird to its lost liberty.³²² The deed, separate from Blifil as its agent, is neither good nor bad. Blifil says that if he had been aware of the distress his actions would cause Sophia, he would never have let little Tommy go, ³²³ but this assertion is not credible in light of the other evidence. Blifil knows that bird is a present from Tom to Sophia; he only asks for the bird after “observing the extreme fondness” Sophia has for little Tommy.³²⁴ Why? – Because he is jealous of Tom and his friendship with Sophia. Sophia sees what the “superior sagacity” of Thwackum and Square does not. ³²⁵ Sophia suspects Blifil’s motives, hence her initial reluctance to give him the bird. She is proved right when Blifil immediately releases little Tommy. Sophia does what Fielding urges the reader to do, that is, “foretel the actions of men … from their characters, [rather] than to judge their characters from their actions”.³²⁶

The disjunction between deed and doer is significant at law. No lawyer wants her or his client condemned for who they are, or because of the nature of the charge the client faces. Separating the two assists an objective assessment of the evidence. Further, the separation of deed and doer maintains the distinction between the actus reus (deed) and mens rea (intention). This separation is important in distinguishing moral culpability and legal liability.

³²¹ Kropf, above n 184, 361. See also Part V above.

³²² Tom Jones, above n 6, 126.
³²³ Ibid.
³²⁴ Ibid, 125.
³²⁵ Ibid.
³²⁶ Ibid, 92.

3.