A Study of Moral Scheme in Henry Fielding’s The History of Tom Jones, a Foundling Khuman Bhagirath Jetubhai Research Scholar Aligarh Muslim University India Abstract The article discusses the moral scheme of Henry Fielding’s novel Tome Jones that has been labeled as corrupt and immoral by most of its contemporary critics. It analyses the reasons for being treated as such. The eponymous character of Tom whose adventures play a prominent role in tarnishing book’s image is investigated threadbare. Seemingly immoral character Tom’s admirable qualities are highlighted and what forces him to behave vilely is also studied. Instead finding him unrighteous, the author argues that he is normal human with its equal share of goodness and weakness that makes Tom’s character a lifelike, a welcome change from divinely pure, pious and one-dimensional characters as portrayed by Fielding’s contemporary novelists. The defense put forward by Samuel Taylor Coleridge (1772-1834), Sir Walter Scott (1771-1832) and Edward Bulwer Lytton (1803-1873) to support Henry Fielding’s (1707-1754) moral scheme in Tom Jones (1749)that is shocking to contemporary neo classicists, reminds of Mahesh Bhatt, a Bollywood film director answering the attack on his production house’s film, the first installment of erotic thriller Murder (2004), that made Mallika Sherawat and Emraan Hashmi instant hit among the Indian youth. His defense was like, ‘who says my film is immoral? It does edify that extramarital affair always leads to destruction.’ In the movie one of the characters involved in the love triangle dies. Despite its successful run at the box-office, where Anurag Basu, the director of the movie fails is, once audience leaves the theatre, their minds are occupied with the pleasure, Mallika and Hashmi gets out of their illicit relationship instead of its fatal result. Is it because the director’s fault that the vice win over virtue? www.ijellh.com 350 It is not the case with Fielding’s Tom Jones, though it faced the same severe criticism from contemporary English society as received by the Bollywood film Murder from Indian moral police. Fielding must have been brave-hearted to write such a book, with courage to endure social rebuke as a response to book’s supposedly immoral theme. How does Tom Jones succeed in achieving its goal whereas Murder fails? Fielding tests his protagonist Tom until he engages in serious discretion and self-restrain. What he gets from a series of affairs is nothing but suffering and pain. His hatred for the foul breath of Lady Bellaston is evident but he has to sleep with her in order to reach to Sophia. The lovers do not unite until Tom is mature enough to refuse the amorous advance of Mrs. Fitzpatrick and an attractive marriage proposal by wealthy Arabella Hunt. The readers finish the book with the feeling of how true love wins over fling. They do not remember the intimate scenes of Tom with Molly or Mrs. Waters, but the happy life that lies ahead in the store for Sophia and Tom who has to pass through difficult trials to prove that they are made for each other and for them cheating is non-existent. Dr. Johnson’s (1709-1784) comment to Hannah More (1745-1833) deserves to be discussed in detail. In one of his conversations with her, he censures her in the following words: “I am sorry to hear you have read it: a confession which no modest lady should ever make. I scarcely know a more corrupt book” (qtd. in Maugham).How Fielding deals with harsh criticism is evident in the following quote: Reader, I think proper, before we proceed any further together, to acquaint thee that I intend to digress, through this whole history, as often as I see occasion, of which I am myself a better judge than any pitiful critic whatever; and here I must desire all those critics to mind their own business, and not to intermeddle with affairs or works which no ways concern them; for till they produce the authority by which they are constituted judges, I shall not plead to their jurisdiction (Tom Jones 10). Fielding’s another scathing attack on critics appears in Book V, Ch. 1 of Tom Jones: “In reality, the world have payed too great a compliment to critics, and have imagined them men of much greater profundity than they really are” (135). To comment on “corrupt book” remark by Jonson, I wonder what Jonson would have thought on today’s ever flourishing publishing industry of erotic literature, in which the writer’s www.ijellh.com 351 sole aim is to make two characters, irrespective of their sex, age and relationship; come closer at any cost and what follows, is sensuous and detailed account of lovemaking scenes. Everything else is in the foreground except lust. It is believed to be the climax of indecency to keep such books in your personal library. One may not find any difference between finding phone directory or adult book in one’s cupboard. But the police see the latter as an important clue that can lead to the solution of crime and invite unnecessary hue and cry. I fail to understand why we treat erotica as sort of illegitimate, bastard son of literature. Why is it not being studied in university as a part of syllabus? Why is it so frightening to break the bedroom walls open for public viewing? Or we prefer to wear imaginary chastity belts? It makes wonder that the reason behind ever-growing population is super human power not sex. When I see people look down upon Sunny Leone, they are ignoring her talent. There are countless adult stars whose films are available at free of cost, but public pay for Sunny’s films! She has the talent and skill at something, which we term as filthy or coarse. We like if an actor is master at doing emotional scene then what is wrong with the same performing an intimate scene, which is part and parcel of life and the only reason for population explosion. Therefore, at no cost one can belittle erotica simply because it does not fit into the moral codes of society. Completely contrary argument is made by Fielding himself the writer of the “corrupt book” Tom Jones, in which I find no grain of truth: “We are as liable to be corrupted by books as we are by companions” (Tom Jones 143). Look at the character portrayals of Fielding’s contemporary Samuel Richardson (1689- 1761). They are not life-like, but one-dimensional and too good to be true. There is not vitality in them. They lack certain dosage of animality, which makes human a human not sculpture which feels nothing whether you kiss or slap it. In addition, Richardson is found propagating his erroneous philosophy, ‘be moral and you will get material success,’ through his works. Fielding has something else to say. He posits: There is a set of religious, or rather moral, writings which teach that virtue is the certain road to happiness, and vice to misery in this world. A very wholesome and comfortable doctrine, and to which we have but one objection, namely, that it is not true. (Tom Jones 112) www.ijellh.com 352 Goodness has inherent connection with the innocence and feeling for others. Then what about the material gain that Richardson talks about? There is no material gain but some subtle inner satisfaction in our mind, that money or vices cannot provide. In his ‘dedication’ to the book Tom Jones, Fielding proposes threefold path of being virtuous. First, as it is noted earlier, virtue provides inner satisfaction. Second is, our aim in life should be pursuance of virtues and avoidance of vices. Fielding portrays characters like Sophia and Squire Allworthy who succeed in doing it. Fielding also makes sure that his characters do not become one-dimensional. He pours weakness in them, which colour them with humanness. Squire Allworthy is stubborn in his judgment and fails to look beyond the balloon of hypocrisy that envelops Blifil. Sophia again is very obstinate. On the contrary, we find wicked characters, such as Blifil, Thwackum and Lady Bellaston. Blifil may have enjoyed life much better than Tom but at the end, he has to confess his evil deeds. He realizes how his pursuance of vices brings disrespect to his family members. Virtue demands circumspection, is the third path. The world is such a bewitching place that if one does not employ self-control; s/he is bound to be doomed. There is no dearth of characters like Molly Seagrim, Lady Bellaston, and Mrs. Waters. Through the example of Tom, the writer advises us to keep safe distance from such characters. Sophia does not unite with him until he grows mature and understands the result of short-term affairs that Tom always loves to have. There are people who religiously follow the motto that life is too short to let it pass without uninhibited enjoyment. It takes great effort to exercise restraint, particularly in the era of internet when one nightstand is available at single click. We need to probe the concept of vice and virtue as propounded by Fielding. His character sketch of Blifil and Tom represents two contradictory traits. Blifil is very sophisticated and saintly in his conversation. He does not involve himself in any immoral affair. He charms us by his shallow goodness. In spite of all his apparent positive qualities, if we delve deep, we discover his evil side. He sets free the bird loved by Sophia not to symbolically affirm that confinement is sin but to torture Sophia and Tom.