View, Been Credited with Much Sophistication at All in Matters of Language
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
This dissertation has been 64—9567 microfilmed exactly as received H A T F D E L D Jr., Glenn Wilson, 1929— FIELDING'S m O N Y AND THE CORRUPTION OF LANGUAGE. The Ohio State University, Ph.D., 1964 Language and Literature, general University Microfilms, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan FIELDING'S IRONY AND THE CORRUPTION OF LANGUAGE DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Glenn Wilson Hatfield Jr., B.A., M.A. * * ***•*■ The Ohio State University 1964 Approved by Adviser Department of English ACKNOWLEIXJMENTS Mjich of the research on which this study is based was made possible by a United States Government ("Fulbright") Grant. I should like to take this opportunity to express my gratitude to the International Educational Exchange Program of the United States Government and to the United States Educational Commission in the United Kingdom. 11 VITA April 14» 1929 B o m - Georgetown, Ohio 1952 ..... B.A., The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 1955-I96O . Teaching Assistant, Department of English, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 1956 ....... M.A., The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 1961-1964 . Instructor, The University of Washington, Seattle, Washington FIELDS OF STUDY Major Field: English Literature 111 CONTENTS Pa&e INTRODUCTION............... 1 Chapter I. THE FORM AND PRESSURE OF THE T I M E S ................ 9 II. THE CORRUPTION OF LANGUAGE THEME INFIELDING; THE PRINCIPAL STATEMENTS ........................... 50 III. "WORDS AND IDEAS": FIELDING AND THE LOCKEAN CRITIQUE OF LANGUAGE................................... 84 IV. LANGUAGE AND S O C I E T Y .......................... 120 Writers, Critics, and. H a c k s ........ .. 125 Politics and Politicians ....................... I66 Polite Society ....... ................... I90 The Professions......................... 217 V. IRONY AND A C T I O N ................................ 265 VI. "THE SERPENT AND THE DOVE": "PRUDENCE" IN TOM JONES . 512 VII. "A MIRROUR FOR THE UNDERSTANDING: THE IRONY OF DRAMATIZED AUTHORSHIP ........................... 542 WORKS CITED ............................................ 577 IV INTRODUCTION The subject of this study is Henry Fielding's preoccupation with language and communication. Its purpose is not only to gather together all of Fielding's more important statements on this subject and to in terpret these in the light of the linguistic theory and the psychology of communication of his times, but also to try to show that his concern for such matters was central to his thought and, since the writer is involved with language above all men, crucially relevant to his art. The importance of the seventeenth- and eighteenth-century concern with language and communication has been made clear to literary students through the pioneering studies of R. F. Jones and George Williamson.^ Martin Price, Aubrey Williams, and John Traugott, in their respective studies of Swift, Pope, and Steme, have shown how deeply this concern 2 was felt in some of the major writers of the period. But Fielding, who, in the words of Leslie Stephen, "more than anyone, gives the es sential -- the very form and pressure of his time,"^ has never had his claims to consideration in these terms strongly advanced. He has not, indeed, in the traditional view, been credited with much sophistication at all in matters of language. As a stylist he has been both praised and damned, but it is an open question whether it is the negative or the positive opinions which have misrepresented him the most. One can dismiss as mere slander such contemporary criticisms as 1 the one in Old England for Sept. 5» 1748, attacking Fielding's "Ignorance in Grammar, his false English, and his Meanness of Language.William Godwin's charge that the style of Tom Jones is "feeble, costive, and slow" and that it is marked by a "hide-bound sportiveness" which is "hard, pedan- 5 tic and unnatural" is, surely perverse. Taine's judgment that Fielding was a "careless," slapdash stylist, an "amiable buffalo" who lacked "even ■ literary vanity" only betrays the Frenchman's lack of sympathy for Fielding's English temperament.^ And William Midford's editorial opinion that his style was careless, ungrammatical, and full of "inelegancies" and that Fielding must "have studied the art of writing with very little attention" can be relegated to the unattended grave of minor criticism from 7 which it was exhumed. But the praise of Fielding's admirers, eloquent and well-intentioned as it doubtless is, is not so handily dealt with. Its dominant effect, placing the emphasis on Fielding's stylistic vigor and "ease" to the exclu sion, almost, of everything else, has been to represent him as a writer gifted in his loquacity but without subtlety, sophistication, or verbal sensitivity. George Eliot, in a famous passage in Middlemarch, expressed delight in "the lusty ease of his fine English."® John Stuart Mill de clared that Fielding's style combines "in a remarkable degree ease with 9 10 force." Andrew Lang wrote of its "delightful ease." Henry Craik noted its "massive carelessness" but praised its "consumate ease," which is en- 11 tirely free, he added, of "constraint of subtlety." J. H. Lobban com- mended Fielding's "vigorous easy style." 12 However valid such criticism may be impressionistically, it fails to take into account the expense of conscious art with which the effect of "ease" was achieved, and it misses entirely the awareness of medium, the consciousness of the process of communication between character and character and between author and reader, the sheer sensitivity to language, which are the marks of Field ing's writing at least as much as the surface of stylistic "ease" and "vigor." Not all of his critics, of course, have been so narrow. Leslie Stephen noticed how pointedly Fielding distinguished between the moral codes by which men actually lived and those "by which they affected to be governed in language"; like Dr. Johnson, "he refused to be imposed upon by phrases.Winfield H. Rogers has pointed out that Fielding's "use of words as satiric or ethical symbols is at once a part of his pre dilection for symbolism and his desire for exact expression .... It was ethically, and frequently satirically, effective to show what terms had, might, or should stand for."^"^ Sheridan Baker has found the chief virtue of Fielding's style to lie not in its ease or vigor but in Field- 15 ing's "alert attention to the meanings of words." Middleton Itirry has noted how this works to clear "our minds . of cant.^ And William B. Coley, in a moment of real insight, has called attention to Fielding's 17 "attitude toward the corrupting word." Fielding's attitude toward the corrupting word is the subject of the present study. Or rather, since Coley appears to underestimate the situation, it is about Fielding's attitude toward the word as both cor rupting and cormptible. For corruption, as Fielding saw it, worked both ways. "There is a strict Analogy," he wrote, "between the Taste and Morals of an Age; and Depravity in one always induces Depravity in the other.Debased language contributed to the undermining of soci- 4 ety, but a debased society also contributed to the undermining of lan guage, and to a man who was both moralist and writer, as Fielding emi nently was, the alternative seemed equally bad. "It is possible," he ob- 19 served in Tom Jones, "for a man to convey a lie in he words of truth." The passage, in context, has to do with the unmasking of a hypocrite, Blifil's confederate Mr. Dowling. But it is also typical of Fielding's perpetual awareness that the medium in which he worked and the motives which moved him were both subject to the grim possibility of corruption, of perversion, of prostitution. The problem, then, on the one hand, was to gauge the effects of the abuse of language on the society in which it was practiced. But equally a matter for concern was the question of what happens to the "words of truth," the common stock of language available alike to the hypocrite and the honest man, to the hired hack and the se rious writer, when these words are regularly perverted to the service of lies. Do the words escape unsoiled or do they bear the taint of the lie? May the honest man speak them or the serious author write them with the assurance that his own sincerity will scrub them clean and re store their pristine values, or will they remain suspect and spread their rot to the thoughts and sentiments they convey? Is the communication of truth, indeed, in the form of the direct profession, possible at all? The problem was a real one for Fielding, and he was not alone in the eighteenth century in his concern about it. Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to George Washington, complained that he was unable to express his gratitude for Washington's services to his country, "for such is become the prostitution of language that sincerity has no longer dis- 20 tinct terms in which to express her own truths." 5 Fielding’s sensitivity to the linguistic prostitutions of his age and his lifetime search for a means, in the absence of "distinct terms," of expressing the truths of sincerity, are the concerns of this study. For everywhere one turns in his works, from the earliest plays through the great novels, one comes upon expressions of the theme and sees evidence of Fielding's personal struggle with a corrupt and in tractable medium. An understanding of his attitude toward language and communication helps account not only for his hatred of hypocrisy, but also for his contempt for Grub Street, his suspicion of politics, his distrust of the learned professions, and his aversion to polite soci ety.