Henry Fielding – Tom Jones

INTRODUCTION

Henry Fielding was a playwright and writer before the Licensing Act 1737 ended his theatrical career.¹ Many of Fielding’s early works contain references to the law, but most were “opprobrious”. ² Admitted to the Middle Temple in November 1737,³ Fielding was called to the Bar on 20 June 1740.⁴ During his time as a barrister, Fielding continued writing to supplement his income. Tom Jones, the comic masterpiece which established Fielding as “father of the English Novel”,⁵ was not published until February 1749⁶ by which time Fielding had left the Bar for the Bench.⁷ This paper investigates the extent to which Fielding’s portrayal of the law in Tom Jones, directly and by analogy, reflects his legal training and his professional experience as a barrister and magistrate.

The thesis this paper explores is threefold. First, Tom Jones’ structure resembles that of a legal case. The narrator and neatly paired antithetical characters present the reader with conflicting “evidence” from which she or he is invited to arrive at a series of “judgments” before reaching a final conclusion. Second, Fielding assigns the reader an active role as judge (or juror). And no judge (or juror) can deliver a valid judgment or verdict without considering all the evidence, in context. Third, the paper argues that there is a direct link between the content and structure of Tom Jones, and Fielding’s professional experience of the law.

Part II outlines Fielding’s biography. It introduces aspects of Fielding’s life which reflect the autobiographical elements in Tom Jones. Part III contains a brief summary of Tom Jones and contemporary critics’ reaction. Part IV analyses how Fielding uses language to establish law as a central theme in Tom Jones. As well as identifying key legal analogies, this part considers Fielding’s use of metaphor with particular reference to the hunting theme which dominates Squire Western’s references to the relationship between Tom and Sophia. This part introduces the analysis of Squire Allworthy, continued in Part V, and contrasts the view of justice he represents with that Western offers. Part IV concludes with a section that establishes the active role of reader as judge (or juror).

¹ Pat Rogers Henry Fielding – A Biography (Paul Elek, London, 1979) 93–95.

² Ibid, 97.
³ Ibid.
⁴ Ibid, 100.
⁵ Sir Walter Scott “Henry Fielding” in Biographical Memoirs (vol 1, Robert Cadell, Edinburgh, 1848) 115.
⁶ Henry Fielding, R P C Mutter (ed) Tom Jones (Penguin Books, London 1985) xxviii [Tom Jones]. ⁷ Fielding’s Commission for the Peace of Westminster was signed on 30 July 1748. See Martin C Battestin with Ruthe R Battestin Henry Fielding – A Life (Routledge, London, 1989), 440.
Part V focuses on Fielding’s presentation of the evidence upon which the reader bases her or his judgment or verdict. It includes sections on circumstantial evidence, character evidence, manipulation of evidence, and concludes the analysis of Squire Allworthy with particular emphasis on his ability as a judge of character. Part VI is an in-depth analysis of the lawyer, Dowling. The analysis, which interweaves the discussion Dowling and his actions with details of the training, status, and public perception of lawyers in the eighteenth century, demonstrates the relevance of Fielding’s practical and personal experience to the central legal themes in Tom Jones. In addition to revealing Fielding’ distaste for “attorneys and petty-foggers”, the discussion of Dowling’s character illustrates how Fielding mirrors the way a court case evolves by withholding the full truth until the end of Tom Jones, while dropping hints that alert the astute reader.

Part VII utilises the “trifling Incident” of “little Tommy”, ⁸ itself a metaphor for Tom Jones as a whole, to draw together the discussion and analysis contained in the earlier parts, with specific reference to the main protagonists, Master Blifil and Tom Jones. A review of the then available character evidence for and against Blifil and Tom is followed by an analysis of the disjunction between deed and doer. The way in which Fielding encourages the reader to focus on what motivates Tom and Blifil is identified. The next section reviews the discussion of the law that follows the “trifling Incident”⁹ and links this to the hunting metaphor discussed in Part III. The final section establishes the connection between this incident, the structure of the novel, and the structure (and presentation) of a legal case. Part VIII sets out the overall conclusions.

⁸ Tom Jones, above n 6, 124–27.

⁹ Ibid, 127–29.

2.