University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

The Good Life: The Development Of A Concept In Smollett'S Novels

(USC Thesis Other)

The Good Life: The Development Of A Concept In Smollett'S Novels

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content CHEEVER, Leonard Alfred, 1939- THE GOOD LIFE: THE DEVELOPMENT OF A CONCEPT IN SMOLLETT'S NOVELS. University of Southern California, Ph.D., 1971 Language and Literature, general ! University Microfilms, A X E R O X Company, Ann Arbor, Michigan i ©Copyright by LEONARD ALFRED CHEEVER 1971 THIS DISSERTATION HAS BEEN MICROFILMED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED THE GOOD LIFE: THE DEVELOPMENT OF A CONCEPT IN SMOLLETT»S NOVELS by Leonard Alfred Cheever A Dissertation Presented to the FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY (English) September 1971 UNIVERSITY O F SO U T H E R N CALIFORNIA THE GRADUATE SCHOOL UNIVERSITY PARK LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 9 0 0 0 7 This dissertation, w ritten by LE0NARD--Av--GHEEVER.......................................... under the direction of h i s Dissertation C o m m ittee, and a p p ro ve d by all its m em bers, has been presented to and accepted by T he G radu ate School, in partial fulfillm ent of require ments of the degree of D O C T O R O F P H I L O S O P H Y D t f t e ....S e p t e m b e r ..l9 7 1 ._ d is s e r t a t : COMMITTEE Chairman PLEASE NOTE: Some Pages have i n d i s t i n c t p r i n t . Filmed as re ceiv ed . UNIVERSITY MICROFILMS TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ........................................ 1 Chapter I. SMOLLETT’S REPUTATION ...................... 9 II. PREPARATION FOR THE GOOD LIFE: RODERICK RANDOM...................................... 37 III. THE GOOD LIFE AND THE ROGUE: PEREGRINE PICKLE AND FERDINAND COUNT FATHOM .................. $9 IV. THE GOOD LIFE IN ACTION; PART I: SIR LAUNCELOT GREAVES .......................... 147 V. THE GOOD LIFE IN ACTION; PART II: HUMPHRY CLINKER.................................... 19& VI. CONCLUSION.................................. 290 BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................................ 299 ii INTRODUCTION J I first became interested in Smollett several years ago when a student asked me if she could write her term paper on Tobias Smollett. I told her yes, but confessed that I knew very little about Smollett myself— I told her that we both might learn something from her project. She j jcame to me again several weeks later and asked for permis sion to change her subject. When I asked her why, she replied— "It seems that nobody knows anything about Smollett." I was surprised to learn that the three books I had recommended to her as likely sources of information on Smollett, Ernest Baker’s History of the English Novel. Walter Allen’s The English Novel, and Edward Wagenknecht’s Cavalcade of the English Novel, were in almost total j disagreement concerning the nature of Smollett’s achievement! and his place in the history of the English novel. Furthermore, I was astonished to learn that these critics presented evaluations of Humphry Clinker, the only Smollett| i novel I had read, which were, it seemed to me, extremely I odd and eccentric. I allowed my student to change her subject. But my own interest in Smollett and Smollett | criticism persisted. I re-read Humphry Clinker and j confirmed my original impression of it. I read the rest of r '............ ' ... ”'~2 ] ! ■ ■ j Smollett's novels and a considerable amount of Smollett criticism. The more Smollett I read, the more firmly I became convinced that he was an extremely skillful and i significant artist; and the more Smollett criticism I read, the more firmly I became convinced that Smollett criticism was "all, all of a piece throughout"— all bad and inaccu rate. Eventually I modified this rather arrogant opinion that I was right and all the world was wrong: there were, I found, some critics who seemed to understand and appreciate Smollett. I remained convinced, however, that there was no accurate full-length study of Smollett's fiction. The present study is, therefore, an attempt to help fill a definite need which I believe exists. This study of the development of the concept of the good life in Tobias Smollett's novels presents detailed j evidence and argument in support of two closely related propositions: (1) that the concept of the good life is a key concern in each of Smollett's five novels, and (2) that Smollett's development as an artist can best be understood j and evaluated in terms of the development of his ability to i present that concept clearly, forcefully, and effectively, j The general method used in order to support these proposi- j tions is that of close analysis of Smollett's presentation I of the concept of the good life in each of his five novels, j I The novels are studied in chronological order because the j emphasis is upon the development of the concept. This I '.... 3 [ study, therefore, undertakes to present the followings j (1) a fresh consideration of each of Smollett’s novels froJ a comparatively new point of view; (2) a comprehensive account of Smollett's development as an artist; and (3) a new evaluation of the nature and extent of Smollett's achievement• The first chapter of this study will present evi dence that a new evaluation of Smollett's fiction is needed, i land will explain why an emphasis upon the concept of the good life is an appropriate approach to use in making such an evaluation. Chapter I will give a brief survey of Smollett's critical reputation, showing that until very recently the criticism of Smollett has been largely inaccu rate, frequently misleading, and occasionally contradictory. Ignorance of the facts of Smollett's life and career, j prejudice against his "language” or against the types of j scenes and characters found in his novels, and the failure | of most critics to examine Smollett's novels as serious, complex works of art— these have long been the three main barriers to a full understanding and a sensible evaluation i of his fiction. Most modern critics will be shown to be not guilty of the sort of ignorance and prejudice mentioned above, and many will be shown to take Smollett's work seriously. Chapter I will include a description of the fouri most important modern approaches to Smollett and a brief j survey of what followers of each approach have contributed to Smollett criticism. In general, modern critics agree i I that Smollett's purpose is always didactic and moral, and that he recommends specific virtues and values (i.e., the "good life*1) in each of his novels. Chapter I will end by pointing out that there has been no extensive study of Smollett's recommendation of specific virtues and values, and none of how and why those virtues and values change and jdevelop from the beginning to the end of his career, i Chapter II will provide a study of Smollett's first novel, Roderick Random, showing it to be a record of how a jyoung man of "modest merit" (Roderick) prepares himself for his ultimate role as a leader of the "good life," It will show that Smollett here defines the good life as a life based upon rural retirement and financial security, and that the personal characteristics needed by the leader of this good life are a certain type of birth and education (Roderick's "modest merit"), plus varied experience in the j world. It will show that as he gradually acquires the j i necessary worldly experience, Roderick becomes acquainted j with the "sordid and vicious disposition of mankind." It will show that "virtuous wedlock" is also a requirement for ' ! the good life, and that during the course of his adventures | Roderick manages to woo an appropriate young lady. The main! I point of Chapter II is that Roderick Random can best be understood as a record of how Roderick successfully prepares himself for the good life by acquiring the necessary worldly ! ................'... ' ......................... ■ ■.~“_5 j experience. The conclusion reached in Chapter II will be ; j that the picture of the good life presented in Roderick Random is not entirely satisfactory for two reasons: j (1) the good life is presented in terms of goals and ideald rather than in terms of specific actions and events— i.e., Smollett presents the good life as a goal to strive for rather than as a specific, active way of life, and (2) the jreader is left unsatisfied because the evil in life is i ipresented too convincingly and the good is not presented I convincingly enough, and because there is no evidence that the world in general will ever improve; there is only i evidence that a few individuals such as Roderick can— through miraculous luck and coincidence— escape from an essentially evil and depraved world. Chapter III will speak of a development of the con- i cept of the good life in Smollett’s fiction. Smollett’s ! I second novel, Peregrine Pickle, will be discussed as a work j I in which the concept of the good life is presented more | i forcefully and effectively than it was in Roderick Random. Differences in purpose, point of view, and structure will j appear as the keys which allow Smollett to present the con- j j cept in a more satisfactory manner in his second novel than j he did in his first, in spite of the fact that the structure! i of Peregrine Pickle is seriously damaged by the inclusion of two long, boring inset narratives. Smollett’s shift from first person narrative in Random to third person narrative in Pickle, and his shift of emphasis from the acquisition of worldly experience to the development of proper character traits as a preparation for the good life, will be shown as the primary reasons why Pickle is, on the whole, a more complex, interesting, and sophisticated novel than is Random. Chapter III will also show that Peregrine is a more complex and interesting character than Roderick, and that in this novel both the good and the evil in life are convinc- i ingly portrayed. Evidence will be presented that perhaps the most important flaw of Pickle is, however, Smollett’s failure to solve the problem of "man and satirist, private and public roles” which he introduces here for the first time. It will appear that Smollett considers— and ulti mately rejects— the idea of a career as "misanthropic satirist" as an alternate form of the good life; that he ] rejects this idea on the grounds that such a career is j liable to have an adverse effect on the character and personality of the man who pursues it, but that his feelings about such a career are ambivalent. Chapter III will also examine Smollett’s third novel, Ferdinand Count Fathom, and conclude that Fathom is Smollett’s weakest novel. It will give evidence that ! Smollett’s failure to solve the problem of "man and j satirist, private and public roles" raised in Pickle is a primary reason for the weaknesses of Fathom. In general, Fathom will be shown to be a sentimental and unconvincing j ' .." 7 'fairy tale which asserts that good will always triumph, and that evil will always defeat itself. Chapter III will give evidence that this novel contributes very little to the | development of the concept of the good life in Smollett’s novels, and should properly be regarded as an unsuccessful experiment on Smollett’s part. j Each of Chapters IV and V will examine in detail one jof Smollett’s last two novels, Sir Launcelot Greaves and I Humphry Clinker. The analysis of each of these novels will | draw very heavily upon the points made in the first three i chapters of this study. In short, Greaves and Clinker will be treated as works which can best be understood and evaluated in terms of how and why they successfully and completely deal with issues and problems which were treated unsuccessfully or incompletely in one or more of Smollett’s first three novels. These novels will be shown to be studies of the good life in action, in contrast to Smollett’s first three novels, which were essentially studies of preparation for the good life. These final chapters give evidence that in Greaves and Clinker Smollett solves his problem of "man and satirist, private and public roles," and gives satisfactory solutions to the various problems which were left unsolved at the conclusions of Random. Pickle, and Fathom. Such issues as the beneficial effects of Smollett’s "Grub Street" labors, his blending of various literary genres, his development of significant new ' ............... ' ..~....' ” .......... a character types, and his final complex and sophisticated view of the good life will be examined in detail. The major purpose of Chapters IV and V is to show how and why Smollett i i was able to create, at the end of his career, two works that ^re rich, complex, and appealing. CHAPTER I SMOLLETT’S REPUTATION Tobias Smollett, who was an M.D. as well as a novelist, historian, journalist, critic, and translator, published his only known medical treatise, "An Essay On The External Use of Waters," in 1752.* In it he attacked the fashionable practice of bathing in mineral waters as a treatment for disease and discomfort. He recommends instead bathing in pure, clean water and sensible habits of personal hygiene, and, with what has been called "admirable vigor," he deplores and ridicules the conditions of "nauseating filth” at Bath, the location of the most fashionable and o popular of the watering places. He also defends a medical colleague he considers to be a victim of injustice and oppression. In many ways the approach, the methods, the general tone, and the purpose of this essay are typical of Smollett’s various literary and scholarly endeavors. Lewis M. Knapp says of this essay: . . . it shows his absolute fearlessness in speaking the truth as he saw it. Nothing in it suggests that it was 3-ed. Claude E. Jones (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1935). j 2Lewis M. Knapp, Tobias Smollett: Doctor of Men and! Manners (New York: Russell and Russell, 1963), p. 147. r . . . . . . . . . . 1 0 i ^ written to fatten his medical fees, nor . . . was he feathering in any way his own nest. The whole Essay appears to have been prompted by a generous desire to help a badly treated surgeon, and to improve the j hygienic and moral conditions of England. In his Essay, then, he played the roles of a medical investigator, satirist, and humanitarian. These activities he was to repeat in the later years of his career in fiction and i . . . as dramatist, translator, book reviewer, and com mentator, in his role of a sophisticated traveler in England, Scotland, Prance, and Italy.3 It is indeed ironic that a man such as Smollett, who had a life-long aversion to corruption and filth, both physical |and moral, came to be labelled by one critic as a man who possessed "... a most repulsive inclination . . . to the merely foul and nasty,and was branded by another as a man who . . . might be said to have filled his pouch with flinty stones which he threw viciously in whatever direction his morose temper prompted. Under his hand the novel degenerated, becoming less intelligent in irony, less cohesive in plot, and much more brutal in tone than it had been under Fielding*s guidance. Even though the callousness of the eighteenth century may be some excuse! for this . . . we nevertheless find no cause for setting] aside the conventional verdict which finds him guilty ofi gross brutality as a writer and, less certainly but supported by his cynical devotion to scenes of ferocity | and to his own fits of truculence, as a man.5 ] i One wonders, of course, if both Knapp and Knight can J possibly be talking about the same person. Smollett*s reputation was not so low among his 3lbid.. p. 150. ^•George Saintsbury, The English Novel (London: J. M. Dent and Sons, 1924), P* Si. ^Grant C. Knight, The Novel in English (New York: Farrar and Rinehart, 1935), p. 53. 1 11 contemporaries: unfavorable judgments about him as both man and author did not begin to predominate until the nineteenth century, and even then an impressive list of the most impor tant writers of the romantic and Victorian periods wrote very favorable comments about him.6 Among his contempo raries, his novels rivaled those of Richardson and Fielding in sales and popularity— although Martin C. Battestin, in i his recent discussion of what may be the first contemporary i criticism of Smollett*s first novel, Roderick Random, points out that a failure to draw a ”veil" over "nature”— i.e., too much "realism,” is the main objection to the book.? How ever, this was not a really major objection on the part of this early critic or on that of many, if not most, of Smollett’s contemporaries. It is true that Smollett, like many other eighteenth-century figures, engaged in his share of literaryj and political quarrels, and the portrait of him as j I "Smelfungus” by Sterne in A Sentimental Journey is well j known.^ However, Smollett had at least as many illustrious j j supporters and admirers as detractors, and even men who ^F. W. Boege, Smollett*s Reputation as a Novelist (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1947), pp. 34-9$. ?"0n the Contemporary Reputations of Pamela. Joseph j Andrews, and Roderick Random: Remarks by an ’Oxford j Scholar,’ 1748.Notes and Queries. CCXIII (1968), 450-52. j ^Lawrence Sterne, A Sentimental Journey Through j France and Italy, ed. Gardner D. Stout, Jr. (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1967), p. 116. 12 could easily have had some reason to quarrel with Smollett maintained cordial relationships with him: David Hume, for example, who had to contend with Smollett as a rival historian and who acknowledged that Smollett’s History of England hurt the sale of his own history, was nevertheless a man with whom Smollett maintained a cordial and courteous relationship.9 Even Samuel Johnson, who is certainly not the sort of figure we would expect to remain on friendly terms with a "low" character, once called upon Smollett for help in a personal matter‘ d and seems to have maintained a i * 1 n 'generally friendly relationship with him. x Lady Mary Wortley Montagu appears to have had a real liking for Smollett and a genuine admiration for his work— although she, along with many others, wrongly guessed that Smollett’s first novel, Roderick Random, was written by Henry I jFielding.12 This is in itself an ironic comment upon those ! critics who contend that the step from Fielding to Smollett is a "degeneration" in the history of the English novel, although a recent critic of Fielding asserts that the I 11 ' ^Ernest C. Mossner, The Life of David Hume (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1954), pp. 315-316. j ^®Lewis Melville, The Life and Letters of Tobias 'Smollett (Port Washington, N. Y.: Kennikat Press, 1966), p. 178. I l^Knapp, Tobias Smollett: Doctor of Men and Manners, p. 218. 3-2The Complete Letters of Lady Mary Wortley Montagu, ed. Robert riaisband (3 vols.J Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1967), III, 9, 66, 78. 13 j"mistake" was not at all a natural one and implies that it jis actually Fielding’s reputation that has "suffered” as a result: The entanglement goes back in one respect to Fielding’s own contemporaries, some of whom imagined Tom Jones and Roderick Random to be the work of the same writer. Such a mistake could only have been made by failing to see the overwhelming difference between Smollett’s practice of writing novels as freehand narrative improvisations and Fielding’s conception of the novel as a work of art. The notion of Fielding as a kind of Smollett with fancier style and more fastidious nose has vaguely per sisted .... [and] many critics of our age have had little inclination to test the validity of this tradition by giving Fielding a really fresh reading.i’ It apparently does not occur to this critic that perhaps the ’ ’tradition” he mentions is not exactly fair to Smollett either, and that perhaps he, too, could benefit from ”a jreally fresh reading." | As to whether or not this tradition does exist, however, there can be no doubt that it does. Comparisons Iwith Henry Fielding are indeed one of the main points of j attack used against Smollett by unfavorable critics— and i even by many who are not actually hostile to him. iGenerally, such comparisons develop the idea that Smollett |is less "moral," less original, less subtle, and less skilled in literary craftsmanship than is Fielding. Smollett has been viewed as a sort of buffoon or jester, adept at painting grotesque characters and lively scenes but lhardly capable of subtle nuances or any sort of complex J -^Robert Alter, Fielding and the Nature of the Novel j _ ( Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1968), p. 25» 14 criticism of life. In a recent book Northrup Frye chooses a i scene from one of Smollett’s novels, Humphry Clinker, to illustrate a point he wishes to make about the literary use I jof myth and ritual specifically because, as he says, a jsmollett novel is the place one would be least likely to expect to find such a thing.^ Frye’s premise seems to be that even a writer such as Smollett is not completely free from the possibility of having his work interpreted in some thing other than a straight-forward, literal manner. Another ironic point about the ’ ’ tradition1 ’ which places Smollett in the role of a sort of crude, second-rate Fielding is, of course, the fact that Fielding»f? reputation, like Smollett’s, suffered a period of decline in the later eighteenth and most of the nineteenth centuries, and Fielding’s achievement, like Smollett’s, was often unfavor ably compared with that of a more ’ ’illustrious” icontemporary. Frederic T. Blanchard has noted that . . . in the closing years of the (eighteenth] century, the old battles raged over the respective merits of Fielding and Richardson, with occasional debates on the subject of Fielding and Smollett. Compared with the ! popularity of Richardson, however, that of Smollett | . . . was not at all formidable.1* As Blanchard goes on to point out (meticulously and at great length), a "Fielding renaissance” did not get well j — ' ' ■ ■ ' ■ ■ ■ ' ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ^4Anatomy of Criticism (New York: Atheneum, 1966), I p. 179. •^Fielding the Novelist (New York: Russell and Russell, 1966), p. 23#. junder way until the beginning of the present century. How- i lever, Smollett’s reputation did not rise along with Fielding’s (except for a minor "Smollett renaissance" in the 1920’s), and it is only within the last two decades— and particularly within the last ten years— that there has been a noticeable increase of interest in Smollett. Even with this increased interest, however, Smollett’s works do not today seriously rival either Richardson's or Fielding’s (or probably even Sterne’s) in either popularity or critical interest. Before we turn to an examination of what some important nineteenth century critics have said about Smollett, it would be useful to list the three most impor tant charges generally made against him. We have already j seen, in the passage from Grant C. Knight quoted above, a I summary of these charges, but, to state them a bit more ;clearly, they are: (1) that he is "low"— meaning "brutal" land "salacious" or "prurient"; (2) that he lacks origin- ality and is competent as a craftsman only in individual episodes, not in the creation of an overall, unified I effect; and (3) that he is amoral or immoral— he either I |teaches nothing at all or teaches "bad" or questionable I values. In succeeding chapters we will, of course, find considerable evidence that each of these charges— |especially the last one— is untrue. First, however, it i will be helpful to examine what a few of Smollett’s most 16 notable "defenders" have had to say about him during a generally hostile or neglectful century. Interestingly enough, we will find that even some of Smollett's "defenders" make the very same charges. Sir Walter Scott's biography and criticism of Smollett in his Lives of the Novelists begins on an extremely confident and enthusiastic note; he calls Smollett a man ” ... whose genius has raised an imperishable monument to his fame."1^ Wilbur L. Cross, Fielding's biographer, attributes part of this enthusiasm to the fact that Scott and Smollett were fellow countrymen,*? but it is impossible to read Scott's essay carefully and conclude that he is merely writing one-sided propaganda* He seems to have had a genuine, sincere admiration and respect for Smollett's achievement, and it is certainly true that he finds numerous faults and weaknesses as well as much to praise. Further more, although Scott concludes his essay by allowing 1 f t Smollett "an equal rank with his great rival Fielding,"x he does so only after having indicated earlier that Fielding i jwas superior to Smollett in many important ways: I | If we compare the works of these two great masters yet | more closely, we may assign to Fielding, with little hesitation, the praise of a higher and purer taste than was shown by his rival; more elegance of composition *6(London: Oxford University Press, 1906), p. 29. *?The History of Henry Fielding (3 vols.; New York: Russell and Russell, 1963), lb6. _______ *^Lives of the Novelists, p. 72.____________________ 17 and expression; a nearer approach to the grave irony of Swift and Cervantes; a great deal more address or felicity in the conduct of his story; and, finally, a power of describing amiable and virtuous characters, and of placing before us heroes, and especially heroines, of a much higher as well as pleasing character than Smollett was able to present.19 Obviously, the difference between what Scott says and the "charges" we have listed above is primarily one of degree rather than one of difference of approach. Scott finds the same "inferiorities" of Smollett in comparison to Fielding as does Grant C. Knight, but he does not appear to be as upset by them, and he professes to find many "virtues" as well as "weaknesses." To offset Fielding’s "superior taste," Scott applauds Smollett’s "brilliancy of genius" and "more inexhaustible richness of invention," and he asserts that Smollett has more range and variety of character and | incident than does Fielding (p. 63). He claims that Smollett excels in "his powers of exciting terror" just as Fielding excels in "moving pity" (p. 69); and he praises Smollett’s "lively" sea characters and "broad and ludicrous humour" (p. 71). Finally, Scott attempts to explain what he considers to be the principal superiority of Smollett over Fielding: ! It is, however, chiefly in his profusion, which amounts | almost to prodigality, that we recognise the superior richness of Smollett’s fancy. He never shows the least ! desire to make the most either of a character, or a | situation, or an adventure, but throws them together with a carelessness which argues unlimited confidence in his own powers. Fielding pauses to explain the 19Ibid., p. 66. . principles of his art, and to congratulate himself and his readers on the felicity with which he constructs his narrative, or makes his characters evolve themselves in the progress. These appeals to the reader’s judgment, admirable as they are, have sometimes the fault of being diffuse, and always the great disadvantage that they remind us we are persuing a work of fiction, and that the beings with whom we have been conversant during the perusal are but a set of evanescent phantoms, conjured up by a magician for our amusement, Smollett seldom holds communication with his readers in his own person. He manages his delightful puppet-show without thrusting his head beyond the curtain . .. to explain what he is doing; and hence, besides that our attention to the story remains unbroken, we are sure that the author, fully confident in the abundance of his materials, has no occasion to eke them out with extrinsic matter.20 Although intended as praise for Smollett, this passage in fact sets forward what has become a major point that is applauded in Fielding and that is used by many modern critics to argue that Fielding’s art is superior to Smollett’s. We have already noted Robert Alter’s criticism of Smollett’s "freehand narrative improvisations" as opposed to Fielding’s "conception of the novel as a work of art." All in all, we may conclude that Scott— although uninten tionally— did at least as much harm as good to Smollett’s reputation. | There were other early critics who shared Scott’s preference for what they considered to be Smollett’s simple, direct method as opposed to Fielding’s more complex and self-conscious technique. Charles Lamb, for example, asserted that he disliked novelists who "continually put a sign post up to show where you are to feel," and he lists 20Ibid.. p. 70. 19 Smollett's Roderick Random as one of the "beautiful, bare 21 narratives" that does not do this. Even Leigh Hunt, who preferred Fielding to Smollett, pays a sort of left-handed compliment to the latter when he says that The most unrefined of Smollett's novels . .. are to be looked upon, not as deteriorations of something he might have done better, but as proofs of the good and the entertainment that may be wrought out of unpleasant materials by the saving grace of genius.22 William Hazlitt is another important early critic who preferred Fielding to Smollett, but he, too, had some good things to say about Smollett. It has been noted that Hazlitt believed "... that the greatest triumph he ever enjoyed was in convincing Lamb, after a series of discus sions extending over several years, that Fielding was better than Smollett.According to Hazlitt*s own essay in Lectures on the English Comic Writers, however, there were actually some areas in which Smollett was superior to Fielding: The style of Roderick Random is more easy and flowing than that of Tom Jones: the incidents follow one another more rapidly (though,it must be confessed, they never come in such a throng, or are brought out with the same dramatic effect); the humour is broader, and as 21Letter to William Wordsworth, January 30, 1S01, in The Letters of Charles Lamb, ed. E. V. Lucas (3 vols.; London: J. )M. Dent and Sons, 1935), I, 239. 22Leigh Hunt's Political and Occasional Essays, ed. L. H. and C. W. Houtchens (New York: Columbia University Press, 1962), p. 345. 23]31anchard, Fielding the Novelist, p. 312. 20 effectual; and there is very nearly, if not quite, an equal interest excited by the story.2^ Hazlitt then goes on to ask how one is to account for the superiority of Fielding, and he decides that it lies in his "superior insight into the springs of human character." Smollett, he declares, "... seldom probes to the quick, or penetrates beyond the surface," and he is therefore "far less interesting than Fielding."2^ Hazlitt also asserts that "The indecency and filth . . . are what must be allowed to all Smollett’s writings."2^ This final point, as we have already indicated, was to be a very common adverse criticism of Smollett during the rest of the nineteenth and well into the twentieth century. When we turn to major Victorian novelists, we find that there are at least two who can be classified as ardent admirers of Smollett. A recent critic of Charles Dickens ihas asserted that Smollett was "Dickens’s favorite novelist,"2? and it has been noted that Dickens speaks kindly of Smollett in David Copperfield2^ and that some 2^The Complete Works of William Hazlitt. ed. A. R. Waller and Arnold Glover (21 vols.; New York; AMS Press, 1967, VI, pp. 115-116. 25lbid.. VI, 115. 26Ibid., VI, 117. 2?E. W. F. Tomlin, "Dickens’s Reputation: A Reassessment," in Charles Dickens: 1S12-1S70: A Centennial Volume, ed. E. W. F. Tomlin (New lork: Simon and Schuster, 1969), pp. 244-245. 2^In Chapter IV of David Copperfield. David lists his favorite boyhood reading; the list includes three 21 episodes and scenes in Pickwick Papers show strong signs of Smollett’s influenceThackeray has provided even more extensive evidence of his admiration for Smollett; in his essay "Hogarth, Smollett, and Fielding," Thackeray is very enthusiastic about Smollett’s "humour," and he states that one of Smollett’s novels, Humphry Clinker, is "the most amusing of novels,"3® and later calls it " • • • the most laughable story that has ever been written since the goodly art of novel-writing began.Thackeray seems to view Smollett as primarily a humorist who merely transferred to paper what he actually observed around him: "He did not invent much, as I fancy, but had the keenest perceptive faculty, and described what he saw with wonderful relish and (delightful broad humour."32 I We have already noted that the authors whose views jwe have been examining were exceptions to a rather general rule of either ignoring Smollett or attacking him as j i"immoral," "low," "brutal," and "indecent." And it is clear | _______________________ I (Smollett novels and one each by Fielding, Goldsmith, and Defoe. He shows the most enthusiasm and affection for the (Smollett novels. ! 29Ernest A. Baker, The History of the English Novel (10 vols.; London: H. F. and 6. Witherby, 1930), XV, 222, 23S. See also Walter Allen, The English Novel (New York: E. P. Dutton and Company, 1954)* p. 72, and Harrison R. Steeves, Before Jane Austen (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, I965), p. 137. 30The English Humorists (London: J. M. Dent and Sons, 1912), p. 200. | ________31 Ibid.. p. 207. 32ibid.t pp. 206-207.__________ 22 that even those favorable critics whose views we have examined take a rather uncomplicated and simplistic view of Smollett’s achievement. In short, even Smollett's "defenders” do not accord him a high place as a "serious" writer whose works are complex and sophisticated enough to demand detailed scrutiny and evaluation. It is no over simplification to assert that in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries Smollett was pretty generally ignored or dismissed with contempt and revulsion and that even the relatively few important writers who spoke favorably about his works probably did as much harm as good to Smollett's reputation. We have already noted that what could be called a "Smollett renaissance" occurred in the 1920's. During that jdecade there appeared several scholarly books on Smollett which helped to clear up some misconceptions about him and jwhich began to provide evidence that perhaps there was more !to Smollett's achievement than had previously been suspected. Edward S. Noyes published his collection of Smollett's letters in 1926;33 Howard S. Buck brought out two volumes— one on Smollett as novelist^ and one on his 33Letters of Tobias Smollett (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press)• Study in Smollett. Chiefly "Peregrine Pickle" (New Haven? Yale University Press, 1925). 23 poetry;35 and Lewis Melville’s Life and Letters of Smollett. to which we have already referred, appeared in 1927. All of these works were indications of the fact that critics were beginning to take Smollett a bit more seriously and were examining his work in greater depth. Perhaps most important of all, however, was an essay by Herbert Read which appeared in 1926; it begins as follows: It has long been a commonplace of criticism that Smollett is the most neglected of our eighteenth- century authors, and it may be that the gradual emergence of a freer sensibility in manners and litera ture makes it possible for us to redress our judgements. It is not a question of recovering from the reaction of a generation that has grown tired of the habit of praise; nor is there the excuse of original obscurity, as in the case of Blake or Melville. We have rather a series of carelessly propagated cliches, derived perhaps from Sir Walter Scott, and given general critical / currency by Haalitt and Thackeray; and these cliches, not carrying conviction, are disregarded. The tradi tional view of the man and his work takes two parallel ! courses— it expatiates on his humor and deprecates his | indecency. But the truth is that Smollett was not essentially a humorist, and that the charge of indecency | is, if not meaningless, at least misleading.3° This is an excellent statement of what is incorrect, inaccu- i rate, and misleading in conventional and traditional evaluations of Smollett’s works. In the remainder of his essay, Read does an excellent— although brief— job of defending Smollett from the charge of "indecency" and of suggesting that Smollett is more than merely a "humorist." 35smollett as Poet (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1927 J• 36coHected Sssavs in Literary Criticism (London: Faber and Faber, 1938), p. 234. 24 Although Read’s essay can conveniently be viewed as a turning point in Smollett criticism, it (along with the other serious critical works we have listed) did not produce an immediate and universal re-evaluation of Smollett’s achievement. Many of the old cliches have persisted to the (present time. However, throughout the 1930’s and 1940’s there continued to appear various essays, articles, and books which have had the effect of slowly building up a body of criticism and scholarship which clearly establishes that it is possible— and very often profitable— to expect more in Smollett than merely "humor" and "lively" scenes and characters. A. D. McKillop states this point as follows: The critical balance that was so badly deranged in the Victorian period has been more tardily readjusted for Smollett than for Richardson, Fielding, and Sterne. It | can be said of criticism of Smollett in our own day i . . . that its tendency is to substantiate by closer j analysis the judgment of discriminating eighteenth | century readers on the fiction of their own age.37 j This "closer analysis" mentioned by McKillop can conven iently be divided into four basic approaches: (1) attempts to ascertain the actual facts of Smollett’s life and career and to show the relationship between his fiction and his various other literary products; (2) studies of Smollett in relationship to the continental tradition of picaresque or "rogue" literature; (3) studies of Smollett as a satirist or humorist; and (4) studies of Smollett’s fiction in l _______________________ I 37The Early Masters of English Fiction (Lawrence, Kans.: University of Kansas Press, 1956), pp. lSO-lSl. 25 relationship to the philosophical ideas and tendencies of the eighteenth century in general. Each of these approaches has made a definite contribution toward a better under standing and evaluation of Smollett's achievement, and in the present study we shall make use of information and ideas developed in each of them. It would therefore be useful briefly to examine each approach and to list a few of the most important representative works. By far the most important modern work on Smollett is, as we have already suggested, Lewis M. Knapp's biography. This work has done a great deal to clarify— and rectify— the traditional picture of Smollett's character and personality. The brutal, ill-natured, malevolent misanthrope painted by such ’ 'critics” as Grant C. Knight is replaced by "... a typical rationalist, a typical satirist, and a conventionally aristocratic gentleman of the mid-eighteenth century" who was "unconventional for his times in romantic self-confession; and a very generous humanitarian."^ In short, Knapp has done in his biography of Smollett just about the same thing that Cross has done I in his biography of Fielding: he has replaced the myth by the man he really was. There are surprisingly few studies of the relation ship between Smollett's fiction and his various other 3&Tobias Smollett: Doctor of Men and Manners. p. 303. writings. In fact, there is only one full-length book on this subject— The Later Career of Tobias Smollett, by Louis L. Martz.39 This work provides a detailed study of Smollett’s activities as a compiler of geographical, his torical, and travel books and presents impressive evidence that these activities had a direct influence upon both the style and the content of Smollett’s last two novels— especially his final one, Humphry Clinker. Martz demon strates that the influence was a very favorable one and that the clear, precise, free-flowing, and entertaining style of Smollett’s final novel is, in fact, the result of "seventeen years of grinding labor.This is, of course, in direct contradiction to the views of such critics as Scott and Thackeray, who have seen Smollett as a "natural" talent who was largely "careless" or undisciplined and who merely "transferred to paper" what he observed around him. Martz has also made some interesting discoveries concerning the relationship between the content of Smollett’s various non fiction writings and the content of his final novel, and we shall consider these findings in some detail in a later chapter. Studies which examine Smollett’s fiction in the context of a tradition of picaresque or "rogue" literature follow the approach most widely used in recent times. This 39New Haven: Yale University Press, 1942. ________4Qlbid., p. 193.________________________________ 27 is not, however, a "new" approach. Smollett translated both Gil Bias and Don Quixote^ into English, and it is obvious that he admired both Le Sage and Cervantes; the ’ ’Preface” to Smollett’s first novel, Roderick Random, indicates very clearly that Smollett is aware of a "debt’ ’ to Le Sage,^2 and another of Smollett’s novels, Sir Launcelot Greaves, is in some respects an "imitation” of Don Quixote.^3 Furthermore, important early critics of Smollett often attempted to examine Smollett’s fiction in relationship to a larger "tradition" developed by Le Sage or Cervantes— or both. Scott, for example, suggested that there were two "picaresque traditions"— one established by Le Sage and one by Cervantes— and that Smollett consciously modeled his recent work by C. R. Linsalata, Smollett’s Hoax: Don Quixote in English (New York; AMS Press, 1967), argues that Smollett did not "translate" Don Quixote himself but merely supervised the re-working of a translation by Jarvis which was done by a group of "hacks" in Smollett’s employ. Linsalata goes to great lengths to "prove" this— but what he "proves" has long been a well known fact;; see Scott, The Lives of the Novelists, pp. 44-46. ^2The Works of Tobias Smollett, ed. G. H. Maynadier (12 vols.J New York: The Athenaeum Society, 1902), I, xxxii. Hereafter referred to as Works. All of my refer ences to Smollett’s novels are to this edition— unless otherwise noted. 4-3we shall see in a later chapter that the resem blances between the two works are only superficial and that the failure of many critics to consider the fundamental differences between the two works as well as the superficial similarities has made it impossible for such critics to present an accurate and comprehensive evaluation of Smollett’s achievement in Sir Launcelot Greaves. 2£ first novel after the "pattern” established by Le Sage.44 Hazlitt came to much the same conclusion regarding the existence of two picaresque "traditions," but he emphasized the ways in which English novelists such as Smollett and Fielding changed or "improved" their "patterns": It has been usual to class our own great novelists as imitators of one or other of these two writers (Cervantes and Le Sagej • Fielding, no doubt, is more like Don Quixote than Gil Bias; Smollett is more like Gil Bias than Don Quixote; but there is not much resemblance in either case.45 Modern critics have generally agreed that there is "not much resemblance," but there are still many who insist that Smollett’s fiction can best be viewed as belonging to a larger tradition of picaresque literature. Generally speaking, such critics tend toward one of two extreme positions concerning how Smollett stands in relationship to such a "tradition": (1) they see him as a man who adapted the tradition to his own needs and interests and thereby improved or "refined" it, or (2) they view him as an incom petent bungler who allowed (or caused) the tradition to degenerate into something very much inferior to what it was before his time. A recent work which pictures Smollett as an adapter and "improver" of the picaresque tradition is The Tradition of Smollett.46 by Robert Giddings. As the 44The Lives of the Novelists, p. 35* 45Complete Works. VI, 112. 46London: Methuen and Company, 1967* title of this work suggests, Giddings views Smollett as one of the founders of a tradition rather than as an imitator of earlier writers. Specifically, he contends that Smollett actually provided greater unity and a more sophisticated and complex criticism of life than the traditional picaresque novelist had offered— in other words, Smollett actually "perfected" the form. Giddings considers Peregrine Pickle to be Smollett’s greatest achievement and says that in it he " . . . had taken the ramshackle form of the traditional picaresque novel and by centralizing his moral theme made the structure conform."^7 Conversely, another recent book, Literature and the Delinquent .4& contends that only one of Smollett’s novels, Ferdinand Count Fathom, can actually be considered a picaresque novel, and that even in that novel "Smollett breaks with the picaresque tradition."49 Other works, such as Robert Alter’s Rogue’s Progress.50 Frank W. Chandler’s The Literature of Roguery.51 and Frederick C. Green’s Literary Ideas in Eighteenth Century France and England.52 all have in common the contention that Smollett 47ibid.. p. 33. 4&Aiexander Parker (Edinburgh: The University Press, 1967). 49ibid., p. 127. ^Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1964. 5^-2 vols.; Boston: Houghton, Mifflin and Company, 1907. 5%ew York: Frederick Ungar Publishing Company, 1966. ____________________________ 30 either "improved” or ”weakened” the picaresque tradition, and in each work the conclusions which are reached regarding Smollett’s place within a tradition are largely determined by how each critic defines and evaluates that ”tradition." Furthermore, in each of these studies the emphasis is upon what Smollett "added" or "subtracted" from the tradition which he "inherited," and the reader is forced to conclude that this tradition is, at best, rather vague. Generally speaking, discussions of Smollett’s fiction in relationship to "traditions" or "models" tend to become discussions of Smollett’s individuality. The third basic approach to Smollett— the emphasis upon his satire and humor— also tends to focus upon his individuality rather than his conformity to a well-defined, pre-established tradition. We have already cited Herbert Read’s comment that Smollett "was not essentially a humorist" and have seen that this is in direct contradiction to a long tradition of Smollett criticism which generally regarded him as only a "humorist." Several recent critics have attempted to reconcile this apparent contradiction by examining Smollett as the creator (or at least one of the creators) of a new character type who is able to provide humor, satire, and social comment because of his unique personality and outlook on life. Thomas R. Preston calls this new character type the "good-natured misanthrope" and says that he " . . . represents a blending of the man of 31 feeling and the traditional literary satiric persona, an unusual reconciliation of satiric railing and benevolent action, of speculative misanthropy and actual good deeds."53 This is very similar to what James R. Foster calls the nodd Sentimental!st,"5^ an£ to one of the group whom Stuart M. Tave identifies as the wamiable humorists” who . . . have an individuality as detailed and as strik ingly vivid as their creators can fashion. Their claim to universal significance rests less and less, in the later eighteenth century, on their being representatives of a species, manner types, and more on their unique ness. The smallest details of their existence are recorded because it is there that reality resides. • . • Nature itself was now numbering the streaks of the tulip.55 Preston, Foster, and Tave all imply that what has often been viewed as the "extravagant,” the "fantastic,” the "grotesque," or the "merely humorous" in Smollett is, in fact, a realistic and serious comment upon life and manners. Probably the best recent study of Smollett’s satire and humor is found in Ronald Paulson’s Satire and the Novel in Eighteenth-Centurv England.56 and Paulson, like the critics we have just mentioned, has attempted to account for what have been called Smollett’s "peculiarities" in terms of 53The Good-Natured Misanthrope: A Study in the Satire and Sentiment of the Eighteenth Centuipr (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Rice University, 1962), p* i. 5^History of the Pre-Romantic Novel in England (New York: Modern Language Association, 1949)* P» 128. 55The Amiable Humorist (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, I960), p. 167. _______5&New Haven: Yale University Press, 1967._________ 32 serious purpose: In Smollett’s novels satire itself is the main aim. The peculiarities that set off his novels from those of his contemporaries— his brutality and tastelessness (which is the obverse of his gusto), his formlessness, the unpleasantness of his protagonists, his personal attacks on contemporaries, and his leaning toward the exotic (homosexuality, mild madness, and Gothicism)— can all be explained if not justified in terms of satiric aim. Satire may cohabit with sentimentality or melodrama in Smollett’s novels, but even these are . . . directed by the satiric aim.57 Paulson develops the thesis that Smollett attempts to adapt the conventions and techniques of formal verse satire to the novel form, and asserts that one of Smollett’s main interests and concerns is the attempt to find a suitable persona to voice his criticism of human nature and society. He attempts to account for most of what has been considered "crude,” "low," or "brutal" in Smollett’s fiction by examining it in the light of serious moral intention, the use of conventional satiric techniques and conventions, and the search for proper points of view and character types to voice both Smollett’s criticism of things as they are and his recommendations as to how a generally sorry state of affairs can be improved. This last point is an extremely important one: one of Paulson’s main contentions is that Smollett ijs interested in recommending positive values as well as in scourging and punishing vice. The last of the four major approaches to Smollett, the attempt to examine his fiction in terms of general 57ibid.. p. 165 33 philosophical trends in eighteenth century thought, is probably the approach which has produced the most meager results. There are two full-length studies of Smollett as "philosopher," and neither of them is very enlightening or convincing. M. A. Goldberg’s Smollett and the Scottish School^** attempts to picture Smollett as a "common-sense philosopher," intent upon reconciling contradictions and treading a middle ground between extremes of reason and passion, imagination and judgment, art and nature, and primitivism and progress. Goldberg concludes that Smollett is unmistakably offering a panacea to the vices and follies of his age .... Folly is the greatest deterrent to happiness in the novels. And the greatest folly for Smollett, the consistent butt of his satire, lies in the position assumed by extremists, divided into opposing camps and quarreling, like the Hobbesian and the Shaftsburian, about issues more imaginary than real. . . . Che] is never an exponent of scientific realism and mechanism, emanating out of Hobbes and Locke; nor is he an adherent to the rational idealism which maintained an unwavering belief in man’s reason and self- determination, as it developed out of the Cambridge Platonists. Smollett, rather, is representative of a third and influential, though much neglected movement, the Scottish Common-Sense School, which devoted itself to bridging the gap between the major oppositions of the century.59 Unlike Goldberg, Donald Bruce in Radical Doctor Smollett°Q attempts to prove that Smollett was an "extremist." Bruce asserts that Smollett was a scientific ^Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1959. 59ibid., pp. 1S4-1S5. ^Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1965. 34 materialist and a political revolutionary determined to help bring about extensive and fundamental changes in the social, political, and economic systems of eighteenth-century England; as Bruce phrases it; The whole point of Smollett’s assault on the existing order is that the existing order can, by human endeav our, be changed. Smollett is a reformer of a type more common in the Victorian period than his own. He is an eighteenth-century Radical. Here, as earlier when reading the comments by Grant C. Knight and Lewis M. Knapp regarding Smollett’s character and personality, one wonders if Goldberg and Bruce can possibly be talking about the same person. Actually, as we shall see, both Goldberg and Bruce are guilty of gross distortions and misinterpretations concerning what Smollett is trying to do in his novels and how he attempts to do it. Although no critic has done an extensive study of Smollett as a conservative who is, in his outlook on life or "philosophy," basically in line with many other important writers of his time, several critics have suggested that this is true. George Sherburn, for example, says of a group of writers including Pope, Fielding, Smollett, Johnson and Goldsmith; It ... is wise to realize that none of these authors was an intentional or conscious revolutionary; they were practically all of them thorough conservatives of the best sort, who wrote with a desire to reform the aristocracy and thus to make the world safe for what we now call the ancien regime. 6llbid., p. 204• 62»*Fielding’s Amelia; An Interpretation," in Fielding; A Collection of Critical Essays, ed. Ronald 35 It is possible to extract from the four basic approaches to Smollett several conclusions that will prove useful in formulating another approach which, hopefully, will shed additional light upon the nature and extent of Smollett*s achievement. Obviously, many modern critics take Smollett seriously and say they find much more in his works than merely "humor" and "lively" scenes and characters. It is also obvious, however, that there is considerable dis agreement over exactly what Smollett was attempting to do in his novels and how he was attempting to do it. What modern critics do seem to agree upon is that Smollett*s purpose is always didactic and moral: he is not merely presenting life as he sees it but is also interpreting and evaluating what he sees. As one observer puts it, "The critics of Smollett have occasionally ignored the fact that he set out as a serious satirist with definite moral purposes."^3 This is no longer the case among modern critics. Smollett’s repu- ‘ tation has come full circle; generally, critics no longer claim that he is "amoral" or "immoral," that he teaches nothing at all or teaches "bad" or questionable values. It is probably true that— especially in the case of such critics as Goldberg and Bruce— they now claim that he teaches more than he intended to teach. Paulson (Englewood Cliffs, N. J„: Prentice-Hall, 1962), p. 157. 63Knapp, Tobias Smollett: Doctor of Men and Manners, p. 309* 36 As we have seen, critics such as Preston and Paulson have recently paid considerable attention to Smollett’s satire, and others, including Goldberg, Knapp, Bruce, and Read, have shown some interest in Smollett’s "moral pur poses.” However, one possible approach to Smollett which has not been investigated in detail is that of what con stitutes the "good life" as depicted in Smollett’s novels; i.e., what system of positive values does he present as an antidote to the follies and vices that he satirizes? Most recent critics have agreed that Smollett does recommend specific virtues and values, but there has been no extensive study of what those virtues and values are, or of how they are presented in the novels. Studies of Smollett’s search for a satirical persona, of his relationship to philosophi cal "schools," of his place within a literary tradition, and of the relationship between his novels and his other works have not focused specifically upon this problem. In the following chapters we shall examine in detail how the concept of the good life is developed in Smollett’s novels. CHAPTER II PREPARATION FOR THE GOOD LIFE: RODERICK RANDOM The second paragraph of Smollett’s first novel, Roderick Random, gives a very brief but accurate preview of the life of the novel’s hero-narrator. Surprisingly enough, it is presented in the form of a supernatural prediction or "forecast,” a device very seldom used by Smollett. Speaking of his mother, the narrator tells us that During her pregnancy, a dream discomposed my mother so much, that her husband, tired with her importunity, at last consulted a Highland seer, whose favorable inter pretation he would have secured beforehand by a bribe, but found him incorruptible. She dreamed she was delivered of a tennis-ball, which the devil (who, to her great surprise, acted the part of midwife) struck so forcibly with a racket, that it disappeared in an instant; and she was for some time inconsolable for the loss of her offspring; when all of a sudden, she beheld it return with equal violence, and enter the earth beneath her feet, whence immediately sprung up a goodly tree covered with blossoms, the scent of which operated so strongly on her nerves, that she awoke. The atten tive sage, after some deliberation, assured my parents, that their firstborn would be a great traveller; that he would undergo many dangers and difficulties, and at last return to his native land, where he would flourish in happiness and reputation. How truly this was fore told will appear in the sequel.^ It does "appear in the sequel" that this was truly 3 - The Works of Tobias Smollett, ed. G. H. Maynadier (12 vols.; New York: The Athenaeum Society, 1902), I, 1-2. All of my references to Smollett’s novels are to this edition, unless otherwise noted. 37 33 "foretold," although some of the most interesting elements of the "prediction" are never fully explained. As John Barth has pointed out: We later readers may wonder why the tennis ball buried itself at Mrs. Random*s feet . • . and why it was the perfume of the blossoms, exactly, that woke her up, and whether the "strong operations" of that perfume were pleasant or disturbing— readers in a good many earlier centuries may have shared our curiosity— but Smollett does not, nor apparently did most of his contempo raries.2 What Smollett is interested in is the opportunity which his "bouncing tennis ball" gives him to examine the social, economic, political, and moral conditions of eighteenth century England. It is important that Roderick is forced to wander over a large geographic area and encounters people from a wide variety of social and economic classes. What we get in Roderick Random is a comprehensive, panoramic picture of society. Smollett’s main purpose is satire— as one critic phrases it, " . . • satire itself is the main aim. The peculiarities that set off his novels . . . can all be explained . . . in terms of satiric aim."3 Smollett himself says in the Preface to Roderick Random, "of all kinds of satire, there is none so entertaining and universally improving, as that which is introduced, as it were, 2Afterword to Roderick Random by Tobias Smollett (New York: The New American Library, 1964), p« 469. ^Ronald Paulson, Satire and the Novel in Eighteenth- Century England (New Haven! Yale University Press, 1967), p. 165. occasionally, in the course of an interesting story. . . ."4 In other words, Smollett wants to teach as well as to delight, and he views the two functions as being inseparably linked. Furthermore, the satire is rendered more forceful by the fact that the hero is a sympathetic character whose difficulties are not of his own making. Smollett wants to awaken "... that generous indignation which ought to animate the reader against the sordid and vicious disposi tion of the world,"5 and the fact that the reader identifies with and sympathizes with the protagonist is important to Smollett’s accomplishing of this purpose. It is important to keep in mind the fact that Smollett’s one lengthy attempt at "pure" satire in prose, his History and Adventures of An Atom,^ is generally regarded as a dismal failure.^ One important reason for this may be the fact that there is no ^Works. ed. Maynadier, I, xxix. 5Ibid.. I, xxxii. ^This work is actually a political allegory which is set in Japan (England) and is a brutal, unmerciful attack upon the Newcastle, Pitt, and Bute administrations. But Smollett spares neither the Hanoverian kings nor the English people (the "Japanese") in general; one typical passage runs as follows: "They (the Japanese] are so practicable, that they have suffered their veins Eo be emptied, and their credit to be cracked, by the most bungling administrations, to gratify the avarice, pride, and ambition, of the most sordid and contemptible sovereigns that ever sat upon the throne." The Miscellaneous Works of Tobias Smollett, ed. Thomas Roscoe (London: Henry G. Bohn, 1845), p. 917. ^Robert D. Spector, Tobias Smollett (New York: Twayne Publishers, Inc., 1963), pp. 36-38. See also Ronald Paulson, Satire and the Novel, pp. 190-194* 40 sympathetic hero: all of the characters in the work are scoundrels and it is impossible to sympathize with any of them or to find any yardstick of goodness and virtue against which to measure the hideous evil and corruption which permeate the world that is pictured in the work. In Roderick Random, however, Smollett wants not only to arouse the reader’s "indignation" but also to "improve" his heart; he says in the Preface: The reader gratifies his curiosity in pursuing the adventures of a person in whose favor he is prepos sessed; he espouses his cause, he sympathises with him in distress; his indignation is heated against the authors of his calamity; the humane passions are inflamed; the contrast between dejected virtue and insulting vice appears with greater aggravation; and every impression having a double force on the imagina tion, the memory retains^the circumstance, and the heart improves by the example.® This "improvement" in the heart of the reader is supposed to take place in basically the same way that it takes place in the heart of the protagonist. Smollett offers his "panacea to the vices and follies of his age"^ in three distinct but inter-related and inter-dependent ways: (1) he points out what is wrong with the world as it is; (2) he explains how an individual can learn to deal with and survive in a corrupt and evil world; and (3) he recommends a better way of life. Near the end of Roderick Random, when Roderick is %orks, ed. Maynadier, I, xxix. 9m . A. Goldberg, Smollett and the Scottish School (Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1959), p. I84. 41 re-united with his father (whose absence has been one of the causes of Roderick’s hardships), he recounts for his father the history of his misfortunes and finds that his father is actually pleased with the fact that he has undergone such difficulties: I recounted the most material circumstances of my fortune, to which he listened with wonder and attention, manifesting from time to time those different emotions which my different situations may be supposed to have raised in a parent’s breast, and, when my detail was ended, blessed God for the adversity I had undergone, which, he said, enlarged the understanding, improved the heart, steeled the constitution, and qualified a young man for all the duties and enjoyments of life, much better than any education which affluence could bestow.10 In other words, Roderick has gone through the first two steps mentioned above: he has seen the world as it really is and has developed the personal qualities and character istics which are necessary for survival in such a world. He is now ready and qualified for the third step, the living of the "good life." Vicariously, the reader’s "heart," like Roderick’s, has also been "improved." Thus we find in Roderick Random not only a fierce condemnation of injustice, folly, vice, and corruption but also some rather detailed rules for surviving in a world that is dominated by such evils. Also, it is clear that if these rules are followed it is possible to create a better world, at least on a limited, individual basis. Speaking of Smollett’s final novel, Humphry Clinker. David Daiches _IQWorks, ed. Maynadier, III, 227.___________________________ 42 makes an observation which is equally applicable to Roderick Random: ... the characters react to their environment and adventures, as well as to each other, in such a way as to suggest both the varieties and contradictions of human nature and the lines on which it may best achieve happiness. The persons whose actions and experiences produce the story, form a microcosm of human society, so that in the end the novel turns out to be Smollett*s recipe for man. The recipe is at bottom not unlike Fielding*s: the good heart is the most important thing. But it is not everything: industry and good management are important too, and . .. only the com bination of goodness and prudence can produce a satisfactory life.11 Roderick is basically "good" to begin with, and he develops ''prudence" in the course of his adventures. Therefore, if we are to fully understand Smollett’s concept of the "good life" it is necessary first to understand exactly how Roderick’s "goodness" is defined and demonstrated in the novel, and secondly to examine how, when, and why he develops the necessary "prudence." Smollett indicates clearly in the Preface what he considers to be the basis of Roderick’s "goodness": I have attempted to represent modest merit struggling with every difficulty to which a friendless orphan is exposed, from his own want of experience, as well as from the selfishness, envy, malice, and base indiffer ence of mankind. To secure a favourable prepossession, I have allowed him the advantages of birth and educa tion, which, in the series of his misfortunes, will, I hope, gngage the ingenuous more warmly in his behalf. 13-A Critical History of English Literature (2 vols.; New York: The Ronald Press Co., I960), II, 731. • * - 2Works. ed. Maynadier, I, xxxii-xxxiii. 43 The phrase "advantages of birth and education" means very simply that Roderick is entitled to and qualified for membership in the upper class. He is, in short, a "gentle man"— but because of an "unnatural and inflexible"1^ grandfather he is denied his proper place in society. Instead of breaking his spirit, however, the cruelty and injustice to which Roderick is subjected actually strengthen his character: . . . the continual wants to which I was exposed, and my own haughty disposition, impatient of affronts, involved me in a thousand troublesome adventures, by which I was at length inured to adversity, and emboldened to undertakings far above my years.1* * - This "haughty disposition" and "impatience with affronts" are presented as positive merits on Roderick’s part; they enable him to survive and even to flourish in an almost totally hostile environment. Thus pride and indignation are shown to be virtues rather than vices; as one critic phrases it, "Smollett . . . uses it [Indignation] as an ethical short-cut, a kind of inverted sentimentalism, with spon taneous indignation instead of spontaneous benevolence as the test of virtue. . . .nl5 Although it is clear that Smollett views Roderick’s resentment as a "virtue," many critics have seen it as a "weakness." John Barth, for example, observes that 13lbid.. I, 4. Hlbid.. I, 11. 1^Alan D. McKillop, The Early Masters of English Fiction (Lawrence: University of Kansas Press, 1956)', p. 152. 44 . . . prideful ire is a standard mainspring of adven ture: the anger of Poseidon, the anger of Juno* But seldom does the wrath of the protagonist himself link episode to episode, and in the temperament of no other heroes that I know of does pure vindictiveness play quite so large a role as in Smollett1s. Heart, head, and hormones all have their influence on Roderick1s behavior, but his special organ is the spleen. . . . resentment is to Roderick Random more than a drive (It isj almost an organizing principle. Odysseus wants to get home; Jason, to get the Fleece; Roderick, to get even.16 Barth1s observation is basically accurate, but there is more to it than he suggests. It is true that Roderick wants to "get even," but it is also true that his complaints are legitimate. He really is, from the very beginning, the victim of almost inhuman cruelty, injustice, and oppression: I was often inhumanly scourged for crimes I did not commit; because, having the character of a vagabond in the village, every piece of mischief, whose author lay unknown, was charged upon me. I have been found guilty of robbing orchards I never entered, of killing cats I never hurted, of stealing gingerbread I never touched, and of abusing old women I never saw. . . . I was once flogged for having narrowly escaped drowning, by the sinking of a ferry-boat in which I was passenger; another time for having recovered of a bruise occasioned by a horse and cart running over me; a third time for being bit by a bakerfs dog. In short, whether I was guilty or unfortunate, the correction and sympathy . . . were the same.17 In light of such treatment, Roderick1s desire for "getting even" is, if not admirable, at least understandable. The same pattern of injustice, oppression, and gratuitous cruelty is repeated over and over again in Roderick Random and in every case Roderick1s reaction is the same. The 16Afterword to Roderick Random, p. 473 I7Worksf ed. Maynadier, I, 11.________ 55 world pictured in the novel is an unjust, violent, brutal, and dangerous world, and Roderick,s resentment is shown to be perfectly justified. Ronald Paulson has discussed Roderick’s character and personality in terms of Juvenalian satiric conventions and has concluded that, "Like Umbricius, the last Roman remaining in Rome, Roderick is the last man who knows what the truth is. . . •" and he 1 1 . . . is there fore not a fool . . . or a passive touchstone but a satiric 1 d observer who recognizes, reacts, and rebukes."AO Roderick’s "pride and indignation" are enough to see him through his childhood and early adolescence. When he is in his early teens, however, it becomes clear that his already precarious situation will become even worse in the near future: his grandfather, who is almost eighty, cannot live much longer and his heir hates Roderick even more than the old man does. Fortunately, however, Roderick’s maternal uncle, Tom Bowling, arrives on the scene and attempts to persuade the grandfather to "settle something handsome" on Roderick. Bowling has spent most of his life at sea, how ever, and dealing with Roderick’s grandfather is "... a task to which he was by no means equal, being entirely ignorant, not only of the judge’s disposition, but also unacquainted with the ways of men in general, to which his education on board had kept him an utter stranger."^9 • ^Satire and the Novel, p. 171. 19workg, ed. Maynadier, I, 15. 46 Bowling is, of course, unsuccessful in his attempt, and the grandfather dies soon thereafter, thus cutting off the last faint hope that Roderick might receive that to which his "birth and education" entitle him. Using his own rather slender resources, Bowling settles Roderick in a university town and arranges board for him with an apothecary. It is clear at this point that Roderick plans to prepare for a "gentlemanly" profession. Roderick is now, however, capable of "reflection" as well as "resentment" and his thoughts run as follows: As I was now capable of reflection, I began to consider my precarious situation; that I was utterly abandoned by those whose duty it was to protect me; and that my sole dependence was on the generosity of one man, who was not only exposed by his profession to continual dangers, which might one day deprive me of him for ever; but also, no doubt, subject to those vicissitudes of dispo sition which a change of fortune usually creates, or which a better acquaintance with the world might pro duce; for I always ascribed his benevolence to the dictates of a heart as yet undebauched by a commerce with mankind. Alarmed at these considerations, I resolved to apply myself with great care to mv studies, and enjoy the opportunity in my power. . . .20 As a result of these ruminations, Roderick works and studies hard and in the space of three years acquires a very respectable store of learning. At the end of that time, however, his worst fears are realized: Tom Bowling gets into trouble and Roderick*s income immediately vanishes. The apothecary, Mr. Potion, turns on Roderick as soon as he learns of this and immediately requests that Roderick find 20Ibid., I, 37 47 another lodging. Rodericks reaction to Potion’s treatment of him is typical: The indignation which this harangue inspired, gave me spirits to support my reverse of fortune, and to tell him, I despised his mean selfish disposition so much, that I would starve rather than be beholden to him for one single meal. Upon which, out of my pocket-money, I paid him to the last farthing of what I owed, and assured him I would not sleep another night under his roof. This said, I sallied out in a transport of rage and sorrow, without knowing whither to fly for shelter, having not one friend in the world capable of relieving me, and only three shillings in my purse.2^ By this point in the novel it is clear that Smollett has so far attempted to do exactly what he said he would do in the Preface. He has, indeed, shown "modest merit” struggling against the "selfishness, envy, malice, and base indifference of mankind." Furthermore, he has given a rather clear picture of what constitutes "modest merit": Roderick’s "birth and education" and his consequent "pride and indignation" entitle him to a much better fate than that iwhich is apparently in store for him. After this point in the novel, however, there appears to be some basis for the charge that Smollett’s original plan— as announced in the Preface— breaks down. Roderick sets out for London and begins a series of travels and adventures which make up almost all of the rest of the novel. One critic describes what happens by saying that "... the emphasis shifts from the alleged merit of the struggling orphan to the view of undisguised human nature. . • .", and that "... the 21Ibid., I, 43-44. 43 theory of indignant satire is inadequate for the novelist*s practice: it is not flexible enough for the exigencies of life and will not see the novelist through his variegated tour of the world.1 *22 Such criticism is to some extent justified, but it does not mean that the Preface is, as one critic has called it, merely , ’silly,,,23 nor does it mean that Smollett has completely lost sight of or abandoned his original plan. If we keep in mind the fact that Smollett*s main purpose is satire and that preparation of Roderick for the ’ ’good life" is another important and closely related aim, it is clear that the shift in emphasis from the "merits of the orphan" to the "variegated tour of the world" is not only justified but also extremely helpful in his accom plishing- of those purposes. One clue as to why this shift in emphasis is justified has already been suggested: Roderick’s uncle, Tom Bowling, is the only "good" character besides Roderick him self who appears in the first part of the book.2^ Bowling is honest, intelligent, benevolent, and, like Roderick 22McKillop, Early Masters of English Fiction. pp. 151-152. 23Barth, Afterword to Roderick Random, p. 473. is true that Strap, who becomes Roderick’s devoted "follower," does appear briefly in the first part of the novel. His character is not fully revealed, however, until he and Roderick are well on their way to London. Even then Strap is not really shown to be a "good" character in the same way that Roderick is; Smollett makes it clear that Strap’s primary virtue is his devotion to Roderick. himself, he demonstrates the proper measure of "pride and indignation.” He is, however, as Roderick describes him, " • • • unacquainted with the ways of men in general, to which his education on board had kept him an utter stranger.” In other words, what he lacks is extensive and varied experience in society. Bowling is fit only for a life at sea, and at the end of the novel he returns to that life. Roderick, however, is being prepared for a much more elevated and complex life, and therefore he does need extensive and varied experience in society, even though Bowling does not. At the time that Roderick sets out for London his education is not nearly so complete as he thinks it is. He believes that he understands "the character of mankind," but actually he is deficient in specific knowledge of how that "character" reveals itself in important areas— and on various levels— of life. In other words, as he finds out almost immediately when he arrives in London, he is still very much a "sucker"— in spite of his theoretical knowledge and suspicions he is highly susceptible to fraud and deception. Another reason for the shift in emphasis from the "merits of the orphan" to the "tour of the world" is the fact that once the orphan1s "merits" have been defined and illustrated the "tour" is much more revealing and convinc ing. The very fact that Roderick does deserve a better fate than he appears to be headed for makes his sufferings seem 50 more unjust than they might otherwise appear to be. Roderick himself serves as an example of virtue and merit against which to measure the evil and injustice which he encounters. Unlike The History and Adventures of an Atom. Roderick Random does provide a clear contrast between "dejected virtue" and "insulting vice." Once Roderick arrives in London, his adventures can conveniently be divided into five major episodes: (1) his experiences in the Navy Office; (2) his encounter with Miss Williams; (3) the expedition to Carthagena; (4) life in "high society"; and (5) experiences in prison. Each episode provides Roderick with specific knowledge about the "character of mankind," and each one offers an opportunity for Smollett to examine the differences between "dejected virtue" and "insulting vice." There are, of course, many minor episodes and transitions, but it is chiefly in the five major episodes that Roderick learns what he needs to know and that Smollett attempts to arouse the reader’s "generous indignation." At the Navy office Roderick quickly discovers that ability and knowledge count for almost nothing without money. Roderick attempts to qualify for an appointment as a medical officer in the Navy, but he finds that such appoint ments cannot be secured without extensive bribery. Even the "examination" turns out to be meaningless and absurd; the examiners are more interested in quarreling among themselves 51 than in examining Roderick, and it is made perfectly clear that the only reason he "passes” the "examination" is the fact that he pays the necessary fee. Furthermore, it is not only the "examiners" who require a bribe; we are informed that "I was afterwards obliged to give three shillings and sixpence to the beadles, and a shilling to an old woman who swept the hall."^^ From top to bottom, the whole system is built upon bribes. Smollett makes it perfectly clear that these conditions are not unusual; immediately after he has passed his "examination," Roderick and some friends repair to a brothel to celebrate. Roderick informs us that . . . I immediately attached myself to a fair one, with whom I proposed to spend the remaining part of the night; but she not relishing my appearance, refused to grant my request before I should have made her an acknowledgement; which not suiting with my circum stances, we broke off our correspondence, to my no small mortification and resentment, because I thought the mercenary creature had not done justice to my merit.26 The placing of this scene immediately after the scene at the Navy office accomplishes two purposes: the "prostitution" Roderick encountered at the Navy office is equated with the literal prostitution in the brothel, and Roderick’s rather ridiculous expectation of being able to succeed on "merit" alone in either place is underscored. Even after he has passed his "examination" Roderick finds that he still cannot obtain an appointment. He 25Works, ed. Maynadier, I, 166. 26ibid.. I, 166-169. 52 returns to the Navy office and learns that it is impossible to secure an appointment unless one is capable of supplying the secretary in charge of appointments with a very large bribe. When asked what he is prepared to give the secre tary, he has thoughts as follows: This was a vexatious question to me, who, far from being in a capacity to gratify a ravenous secretary, had not wherewithal to purchase a dinner. I therefore answered, I had not yet determined what to give; and sneaked off towards my own lodgings, cursing my fate all the way, and inveighing with much bitterness against the bar barity of my grandfather, and the sordid avarice of my relations, who left me a prey to contempt and indigence.27 It is most significant that Roderick curses his "fate” and blames his grandfather and his relatives rather than the secretary or the system he represents. It apparently never crosses Roderick’s mind that bribery and corruption are in themselves evil; he laments the fact that he has no bribe to give rather than the fact that a bribe is necessary. Critics who assert that Smollett is a "radical" who calls for widespread social, economic, and political reforms2* * apparently fail to see that he condemns individuals rather than the system within which they operate. After his failure to secure an appointment in the Navy, Roderick is forced to accept a position as apprentice to Mr. Lavement, an apothecary. After a series of assorted 27Ibid.. I, 176. 2^Donald Bruce, Radical Doctor Smollett (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1965), p. 204. 53 misfortunes, he is finally, through the treachery of a former friend, reduced to a most dangerous condition. He is unjustly accused of robbing his master and finds that, being unable to prove his innocence, he is abandoned by all of his former "friends.1 * To make matters even worse, he has managed to catch a venereal disease. Again he reflects on his miserable condition: Thus I found myself, by the iniquity of mankind, in a much more deplorable condition than ever: for though I had been formerly as poor, my reputation was without blemish, and my health unimpaired till now; but at present my good name was lost, my money gone, my friends were alienated, my body was infected by a distemper contracted in the course of an amour, and my faithful Strap, who alone could yield me pity and assistance, absent I knew not where.29 Roderick manages to escape prosecution for the "crime" and then withdraws into hiding so that the "infamy” of the episode will have time to die down and so that he can cure himself of his "distemper." It is while he is in hiding that he meets Miss Williams, a young woman he formerly believed to be an "heiress." He had, in fact, at one time been on the verge of marrying her for her money, but was prevented from doing so by the fact that he found her in bed with another man. He now learns that she is actually a prostitute and that she suffers from the same "distemper" that he suffers from. Roderick’s encounter with Miss Williams is important in two ways. First of all, his kindness to her helps to 29Works, ed. Maynadier, I, 216-217. 54 support further the claim that he does possess what Smollett calls "modest merit," The fact that she had tried to trick him into marriage would seem to give him grounds for refusing to help her in her distress; however, instead of condemning her he tells us, "Her deplorable situation filled my breast with compassion. ..." and, "Such extremity of distress must have awakened the most obdurate heart to sympathy and compassion. What effect then must it have had on mine, that was naturally prone to every tender passion?"30 Roderick is willing to share his last few shillings with Miss Williams and to help cure her of her venereal disease. Besides "birth and education" and "pride and resentment," Roderick’s "modest merit" is partly founded upon benevolence and charity; he is willing not only to forgive those who have attempted to wrong him but also to assist and comfort them in their distress. The second way in which the Miss Williams episode is important is that it gives a further insight into Smollett’s views on the subject of sexual morality. Until this point in the novel there is no evidence that Smollett condemns Roderick for his sexual escapades. Roderick frequents prostitutes and engages in various "amours" (one of which has caused his "distemper"), and there is no evidence that Roderick feels any guilt about this activity or that Smollett means to condemn him for it. One critic says of 3°Ibid.. I, 219-220. 55 Smollett that ” ... fornication seem[efj almost morally neutral to him, • , . he has very little sense of sin. His heroes do things, and do them on almost every page, which in any nineteenth-century English novel would instantly call forth vengeance from the skies,This same critic also observes, however, that female "... ’chastity,* which is inextricably mixed up with the idea of capturing a husband. ..." is one of the positive virtues that Smollett wants to recommend.^2 In other words, Smollett puts forward a double standard: it is perfectly natural and acceptable for a young man to "sow a few wild oats," but once a woman surrenders her chastity she automatically forfeits her opportunity for achieving what would be the "good life" for her; i.e., honorable marriage. As Miss Williams tells her story to Roderick, we learn that she was a "gentlewoman" who was seduced and abandoned by a young man, and that she con sequently descended into a life of prostitution, want, misery, and despair. After hearing her story, Roderick recognizes that her condition is infinitely worse than his own: I compared her situation with my own, and found it a thousand times more wretched. I had endured hardships, *t is true; my whole life had been a series of such; 3lGeorge Orwell, "Tobias Smollett: Scotland’s Best Novelist," in The Collected Essays. Journalism and Letters of George Orwell, ed. Sonia Orwell and Ian Angus (A vols.: New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, Inc., 196S), III, 245-246. ________32Ibid.. Ill, 246._________________________________ 56 and when I looked forward, the prospect was not much bettered; but then they were become habitual to me, and consequently I could bear them with less difficulty. If one scheme of life should not succeed, I could have recourse to another, and so to a third, veering about to a thousand different shifts, according to the emer gencies of my fate, without forfeiting the dignity of my character beyond a power of retrieving it, or subjecting myself wholly to the caprice and barbarity of the world.33 In other words, there are a number of possible "professions” open to Roderick and sexual indulgence does not in any way destroy his "good name." In the case of Miss Williams, how ever, honorable marriage was the only "profession" open to her, and the loss of her chastity ended that one possi bility. Furthermore, as Roderick recognizes, the fact that she has enjoyed a happy and secure childhood makes her current situation seem even worse: . . . she had known and relished the sweets of prosper ity; she had been brought up under the wings of an indulgent parent, in all the delicacies to which her sex and rank entitled her; and, without any extravagance of hope, entertained herself with the view of uninter rupted happiness through the whole scene of life. How fatal then, how tormenting, how intolerable must her reverse of fortune be! A reverse that not only robs her of these external comforts, and plunges her into all the miseries of want, but also murders her peace of mind, and entails upon her the curse of external infamy. Of all professions, I pronounce that of a courtezan the most deplorable, and her of all courtezans the most unhappy.34 The fact that the person who ruminates in this manner upon the misery and hardships of "courtezans" is 33works. ed. Maynadier, II, 32-33* 34lbid.. II, 33. 57 himself a man who frequents prostitutes and thus helps to support this way of life seems, at first glance, rather odd. Also, the fact that Roderick later employs Miss Williams in helping him to win the love of Narcissa, the girl he even tually marries, has been viewed with alarm by some critics. Harrison R. Steeves, for example, makes the following obser vation: If "good taste” is still recognized in our free and easy society, perhaps Smollett can be convicted of an error in taste in employing this Miss Williams as intermediary in Roderick’s courtship of the guileless Narcissa. But then Roderick’s own gallantry is of the ambiguous order, since he is quite ready to punctuate the passages in this idealized attachment with passing whoredoms.35 Actually, the only explanation for Roderick’s behavior is that he simply accepts prostitution as an inevitable part of life— just as he accepts the system of bribery and corrup tion in the Navy office. He sympathizes with and helps Miss Williams because (A) she has not willingly and knowingly embraced that way of life (”I . . . looked upon her as unfortunate, not criminal. . • .”3^), and (B) she is no hypocrite— she freely admits the sordidness of her way of life and plans to make a sincere effort to r e f o r m .37 The final word on the subject of prostitution is provided by 35Before Jane Austen (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1965), p. 135. 3&Works. ed. Maynadier, II, 35. 37she actually does reform, and at the time that she assists Roderick in his courtship of Narcissa she is pre sented as a completely changed person. 58 Miss Williams herself as she describes the "progress" of a diseased courtezan in terms which remind one of a drawing by Hogarth: .. . her complexion fades; she grows nauseous to every body; finds herself reduced to a starving condition; is tempted to pick pockets; is detected; committed to Newgate, where she remains in a miserable condition till she is discharged, because the plaintiff will not appear to prosecute her. Nobody will afford her lodgings; the symptoms of her distemper are grown outrageous; she sues to be admitted into an hospital, where she is cured at the expense of her nose; she is turned out naked into the streets, depends upon the adresses of the lowest class, is fain to allay the rage of hunger and cold with gin; degenerates into a brutal insensibility, rots and dies upon a dunghill.38 Immediately following the Miss Williams episode Roderick is seized by a press gang and thus begins the third major episode. Roderick1s experiences both as a common sea man and as a medical officer during the ill-fated Carthagena Expedition are generally considered to be the most interest ing and moving part of the novel.39 These experiences serve as a definite turning point in Roderick’s development and also provide an opportunity for some of the most fierce and indignant satire that Smollett ever wrote. Until this point Roderick’s difficulties have been very mild in comparison to what happens to him during the Expedition. Similarly, the condemnation of evil and corrupt individuals has been com paratively mild in that the results of such evil and 3%orks. ed. Maynadier, II, 34* ^Laurence Brander, Tobias Smollett (London: The British Book Council, 1951), pp. 16-17• corruption have been illustrated as they affect only one unfortunate individual. In his account of life aboard ship and of the attack upon Carthagena, however, Smollett draws a picture of widespread incompetence, cruelty, and oppression that torture and kill hundreds of people. In discussing the account of the Carthagena Expedi tion given in Roderick Random, it is important to keep in mind the fact that Smollett himself actually took part in the historical Expedition and that the hardships and diffi culties he describes were, to a very large extent, based upon first-hand knowledge and experience.4*° Furthermore, Smollett wrote about the Expedition elsewhere— in his "An Account of the Expedition Against Carthagena, for example. A comparison of this work with the parts of Roderick Random which deal with the Expedition reveals clearly how Smollett uses effectively his device of the "friendless orphan" who possesses "modest merit." In the two accounts the details concerning the horrors of life aboard ship and the picture of bungling and incompetent ^Lewis M, Knapp, Tobias Smollett: Doctor of Men and Manners (New York: Russell and Russell, 1963), pp. 36- w . ^•The Miscellaneous Works of Tobias Smollett, ed. Thomas Roscoe, pp. 604-612. This work was originally pub lished in 1756 as a part of A Compendium of Authentic and Entertaining Voyages. Digested in a Chronological Series. For a discussion of Smollett^ part in this publication see Knapp, pp. IS4-I65, and also Louis L. Martz, "Smollett and the Expedition to Carthagena," in PMLA, LVI (1941), 42S-46. 60 leaders are closely parallel. However, in Roderick Random the use of a sympathetic first-person narrator brings this horror and incompetence alive and makes the presentation much more moving and powerful than does the third person, comparatively objective account given in "An Account of the Expedition Against Carthagena." For example, both accounts describe the treatment of wounded soldiers after the battle in very shocking terms; in "An Account of the Expedition Against Carthagena” we are told that As for the sick and wounded, they were next day sent on board of the transports and vessels called hospital ships, where they languished in want of every necessary comfort and accomodation. They were destitute of surgeons, nurses, cooks, and proper provision; they were pent up between decks in small vessels, where they had not room to sit upright; they wallowed in filth; myriads of maggots were hatched in the putrefaction of their sores. . . . This picture cannot fail to be shocking to the humane reader, especially when he is informed, that while these miserable objects cried in vain for assistance, and actually perished for want of attend ance, every ship of war in the fleet could have spared a couple of surgeons for their relief; and many young gentlemen of that profession solicited their captains in vain for leave to go and administer help to the sick and wounded. . . .42 In Roderick Random this same episode is presented as follows: The sick and wounded were squeezed into certain vessels, which thence obtained the name of hospital ships, though methinks they scarce deserved such a creditable title, seeing few of them could boast of their surgeon, nurse, or cook; and the space between decks was so confined, that the miserable patients had not room to sit upright in their beds. Their wounds and stumps being neglected, 4^The Miscellaneous Works of Tobias Smollett, ed. Roscoe, p. 6l0. 61 contracted filth and putrefaction, and millions of maggots were hatched amidst the corruption of their sores. This inhuman disregard was imputed to the scarcity of surgeons; though it is well known, that every great ship in the fleet could have spared one at least for this duty; an expedient which would have been more than sufficient to remove this shocking incon venience. ^3 In Roderick Random the fact that surgeons were available to relieve the sufferings of the wounded is dramatized by the presence of Roderick himself— he has been shown to be a thoroughly competent surgeon who is not only available but even eager to help relieve such misery and is prevented from doing so by incompetent, inhuman "leaders." Furthermore, through Roderick’s eyes, nose, and ears we are made to see, smell, and hear the horrors much more effectively and movingly than in "An Account of the Expedition Against Carthagena." Although conditions are shown to be absolutely deplorable during the Carthagena Expedition, it is very clear that Smollett places the blame for such conditions upon the shoulders of various "leaders" rather than upon any abstract concept such as "the system" or "the evils of war fare." Again, as in the episode of the Navy office, when his grandfather’s failure to provide properly for him is blamed, Roderick’s indignation is directed against the shortcomings of specific individuals rather than against the Navy, the government, or warfare in general. When he is 4-3works. ed. Maynadier, II, 116. 62 pressed as a common seaman he writes off his misfortune as another example of "bad luck" and does not hesitate to use the influence of the two friends he discovers to be on board the ship, Thompson and Jack Rattlin, to secure for himself an appointment as surgeon1s third mate. All of his subse quent difficulties are attributed to the malign influence of the surgeon, Mackshane; Crampley, the first mate; or Captain Oakum. The difficulties and hardships of life aboard ship are accepted philosophically by the "good" characters— Roderick himself, Thompson, Rattlin, and Morgan, the surgeon’s first mate. The episode of Roderick’s "confine ment"— one of the most gory and horrifying in the novel- clear ly illustrates this point that suffering and hardships are inevitable but that incompetent and malicious "leaders" make them unbearable. Roderick’s education and professional skill prove to be liabilities rather than assets because of the fact that the surgeon himself is an ignorant, incompetent, inhumanly cruel person. When Roderick and Morgan manage to save Jack Rattlin’s leg, Mackshane, the surgeon, vows to get revenge upon them because he had wanted to amputate the leg and thus believes he has lost "face." Roderick informs us that I applauded myself much for this feat, which turned out one of the most unlucky exploits of my life, Mackshane from that time marking me out for destruction. About a week after this exploit, as I was going my rounds among the sick, I was taken prisoner, and carried to the poop by the master-at-arms, where I was loaded with irons, and stapled to the deck, on pretence that I was a spy on 63 board, and had conspired against the captain*s life. How ridiculous soever this imputation was, I did not fail to suffer by it all the rigour that could be shown to the worst of criminals, being exposed in this miser able condition to the scorching heat of the sun by day, and the unwholesome damps by night, during the space of twelve days, in which I was neither brought to trial, nor examined touching the probability of the charge.44 While Roderick is still in this helpless condition, the ship engages another vessel in battle and he is forced to endure an unspeakably horrible experience: The reader may guess how I passed my time lying in this helpless situation, amidst the terrors of a sea-fight; expecting every moment to be cut asunder, or dashed in pieces by the enemy*s shot I I endeavoured to compose myself as much as possible, by reflecting that I was not a whit more exposed than those who were stationed about me; but when I beheld them employed without intermission in annoying the foe, and encouraged by the society and behavior of one another, I could easily perceive a wide difference between their condition and mine: however, I concealed my agitation as well as I could, till the head of the officer of the marines, who stood near me, being shot off, bounced from the deck athwart my face, leaving me well-nigh blinded with brains. I could con tain myself no longer, but began to bellow with all the strength of my lungs: when a drummer coming towards me, asked if I was wounded? and before I could answer, received a great shot in his belly, which tore out his entrails, and he fell flat on my breast. This accident entirely bereft me of all discretion: I redoubled my cries, which were drowned in the noise of the battle; and finding myself disregarded, lost all patience, and became frantic: I vented my rage in oaths and execra tions. . . As this passage indicates, the horrors of battle are even worse for Roderick than for the others because he is not allowed to take his proper place in the battle and is not allowed to exercise his skill and to contribute to the 44lbid.. II, 31. 45ibid.. II, 33-64 64 defeat of the enemy. Obviously, life is cruel, brutal, and horrible even when one is allowed to assume his proper place, but it is rendered unbearable when that proper place is denied. It is no wonder that he wants to "get even," and it is obvious that his futile "oaths and execrations" are the verbal equivalents of the "indignation" and "resentment" he has shown on previous occasions. As we have seen, Roderick’s whole history has been a series of episodes in which he has been denied his "proper place”— first by his grandfather and other relatives, and now by incompetent, cruel, almost inhuman superiors. Some critics have been greatly troubled by the fact that there is so much cruelty and brutality in Roderick Random and have tried to trace the reasons for this fact to supposed "quirks" and "oddities" in Smollett’s personality. Alexander A. Parker, for example, says that Smollett’s villains "... are not just villainous, they are totally heartless and indifferent to brutality. Captain Oakum and Dr. Mackshane . . . are brutal bullies for no apparent reason at all— they merely happen to be such." He then con cludes that "They merely represent the perfidy of ’the world,’ which is itself so pointless that one cannot help feeling it to be merely a personal resentment on the part of the author."4-6 Parker apparently fails to take seriously ^ Literature and the Delinquent (Edinburgh: The University lPress, 1967), p. 127. 65 Smollett’s statement in the Preface that his purpose is to show the "selfishness, envy, malice, and base indifference of mankind." If, however, Parker does take Smollett’s statement of purpose seriously, then his criticism of Smollett is apparently based upon the premise that pointless cruelty, torture, and inhumanity were not normal facts of life in eighteenth-century England, and that Smollett dis torted and exaggerated what he had observed. The same charge is often made concerning Smollett’s supposed "obses sion" with uncleanliness and filth.^ Other critics, however, have praised Smollett for what has been called his "direct realism"^ in his treatment of such matters, and one has even asserted that the accounts of hardships and cruelty are the only parts of Roderick Random that can be regarded as "historical."^ One of the most interesting attempts to account for Smollett’s presentation of hardships and cruelty— and the frequent descriptions of uncleanliness and filth— is that of Walter Allen, who says that Smollett . . . exposes, crudely and brutally, a brutal and crude society. He writes like a man born with a skin too few, and affronted in all his senses by life as he has experienced it; and he flings back at society, with all ^Edward Wagenknecht, Cavalcade of the English Novel (New York: Holt. Rinehart and Winston, 1943)". PPT75-77. ^Herbert Read, Collected Essays in Literary Criticism (London: Faber and Faber, 1938)* p. 235. ^Louis l. Martz, The Later Career of Tobias jSmollett (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1942), p. 13* 66 the contempt and indignation he can muster, rather more than he has got . . . his brutality is homoeopathic, that of the morbidly sensitive man who seeks to cure his contemporaries of the filth they live in by rubbing their noses in it.5° As we have already indicated, there is general agreement among the most informed critics of Smollett that Allen’s evaluation is closer to the truth than is Parker’s. Concerning the "accuracy" of the naval scenes, for example, Alan D. McKillop says that "... Smollett’s unsavory descriptions in Roderick Random of life aboard a man-of-war are accurate and first-hand. . . ,"^1 In the matter of the treatment of uncleanliness and filth, as well as that of hardships and cruelty, it is again Walter Allen who gives the most concise and convincing summary of Smollett’s pur poses and methods: Smollett attacked his age precisely where it was most vulnerable, where it was dirty and diseased. If we today think of the eighteenth century in terms of its architecture, then Smollett shows us what lies behind the sobriety and elegance of the facade. The staircase is a public privy. Through the upper windows the chamber pots are emptied into the street below. The fine ladies and gentlemen at the ball stink because they are not clean; they are the victims of gout and pox; because they eat and drink too much, they grow to look like pigs. If they are poor, if they are sailors or children, they are at the mercy of brutal, capricious authority and will be flogged and starved into insensi bility or scurvy. If they lack the money with which to bribe they will remain at the mercy of anyone rich or 50The English Novel (New York: E. P. Dutton & Co.. 1954), pp. 63-64.------- 53-English Literature from Dryden to Burns (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 194$), p. 114. See also Lewis M. Knapp, "The Naval Scenes in Roderick Random." PMLA. XLIX (1934), 593-593. 67 more powerful than themselves. In any case, they will be robbed and cheated by their superiors.52 It is interesting to observe that even some critics who are not primarily concerned with matters such as historical accuracy or "realism” come to conclusions that are in many ways similar to those of Walter Allen. Philip Stevick, for example, in a recent essay on Smollett*s prose style, concludes that . . • it is a remarkably vigorous style, evocative of a world containing much stress and little relaxation, evocative of the comic inability of the participants to admit qualifications and degree, evocative of a world in which laughter exists under threat of fear and love exists under threat of hate, the image, at once heroic, comic, melodramatic, and absurd, of man hanging on to life by his fingernails.53 Prom what we have already observed of Roderick Random we may conclude, therefore,— as does Robert Alter— that "... some of the fierce or menacing aspects of the world of Roderick Random are justifiable on the same grounds that Smollett himself would have justified them: the desire to present ordinary life as it is."54 52The English Novel, p. 64. 53«»stylistic Energy in the Early Smollett," Studies in Philology. LXIV (1967), 713. See also C. J. Rawson, "Nature’s Dance of Death: Part I: Urbanity and Strain in Fielding, Swift, and Pope," Eighteenth-Century Studies. Ill (1970), 326-323. Rawson compares the prose styles of Fielding and Smollett and reaches conclusions which are in many ways similar to those of Stevick. 54»The Picaroon as Fortune’s Plaything" in Essays On The Eighteenth-Century Novel, ed. Robert D. Spector (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1965), pp. 136-137. 66 The naval episode of Roderick Random ends in very much the same manner in which it began: in a sense Roderick is "pressed1 1 out of the Navy just as he was "pressed" in to it. Through the treachery of Crampley, the first "enemy" he made aboard Captain Oakum’s ship, Roderick is beaten, robbed, and left for dead on a deserted stretch of English coast. He manages to make his way, however, to the home of Mrs. Sagely, who— like the earlier Miss Williams— is a one time aristocrat who was unlucky in love. She manages to nurse him back to health and to help him secure a place as servant on one of the rich estates in the neighborhood. Thus begins the fourth major episode in the novel— Roderick’s experiences in "high society." These experiences are divided between life on a country estate and life in the beau monde of London and Bath, with an interval between the two divisions during which Roderick makes a brief "grand tour" of the continent. In short, this fourth major episode of the novel carries Roderick a great deal farther in his "variegated tour of the world." Roderick’s experiences on the country estate to which Mrs. Sagely directs him are often cited as the weakest and most tedious part of the novel. It is at this point that he meets the "divine Narcissa," the young lady he falls in love with and eventually marries. One critic says of this episode that "when Roderick expresses his passion for the beauteous Narcissa • . . there is no . . . depth of 69 implication, no running irony, and the rhetoric rings hollow,”55 while another describes Narcissa as " . . . not truly a body, much less an embodiment, she’s a mere bright skinned reflection of the hero’s self-esteem: a comely face, a fetching bosom, and an utterly noncosmic womb."56 There is no doubt that the "rhetoric rings hollow" or that Roderick’s Narcissa is much less than a believeable, fully developed character. Furthermore, it is, at first glance, rather surprising that a character who has, in the Miss Williams episode, been informed of and reflected upon the horrible degradation to which even "good" women are liable— and who has himself casually engaged in "passing whoredoms" — should suddenly blossom forth as a romantic lover and as a man who holds "glorious ideals" concerning the virtues and perfections of women. And it is still more surprising that such a blossoming should take place in a novel which, up to this point, has been largely devoted to accounts of cruelty, injustice, hardships, suffering, and brutality— and whose hero has only recently been "stapled" to the deck of a man-of-war and drenched in human brains, blood, and gore. If we assume, however, that the function of this episode is not to give a realistic and convincing picture of deep, passionate "love" but rather to give Roderick an ideal to ^^McKillop, Early Masters of English Fiction. p. 152. ^Barth, Afterword to Roderick Random, p. 471 • 70 strive for, then such "surprises" can be more easily accounted for and explained; as one critic phrases it . . . Smollett’s heroines jar0 stock figures with no intrinsically satiric purpose. Maligned though they have been, characters like Narcissa do function in his novels. They are representatives of an eighteenth- century "norm," bearers of "virtue and discretion," images of "delicacy, elegance," objects of "soft and feminine grace." In them breeding and wealth combine to make up their attractiveness. These so-called "milliners’ dummies" are idealized womanhood in Smollett’s novels; they are the goals of respectability toward which the hero strives, and their stability— the very absence of flaws in their makeup— serves to con trast them with the grotesque and unstable values of the . . . world. Moreover, their presence in the novels gives some direction to the narrative. Throughout Roderick’s . . . adventures after he has met Narcissa, the suggestion of her existence provides some normal guidelines for the adventurer; and, with her return to the story, Smollett is able to terminate the action.57 In other words, just as we have noted above that the "fierce and menacing" aspects of Roderick Random can be defended on the grounds that they try to show "ordinary life as it is," so the "romantic" episode can be justified on the grounds that its function is to show an important part of the "good life" that could and should exist. The emphasis is on Roderick’s preparation for the "good life," and this preparation is accomplished in two stages: first the world as it actually is must be seen and understood, and secondly appropriate ideals must be defined and illustrated. When Roderick arrives at the country estate he finds not only the "divine" Narcissa but also fresh examples of corruption and incompetence in high places. Just as in his 57spector. Tobias Smollett, pp. 51-52. 71 experiences with his grandfather and relatives, with his schoolmaster, with the officials at the Navy office, and with the officers aboard ship, he finds that the estate is managed by thoroughly incompetent "leaders.” His mistress, Narcissa’s aunt, is a would-be poet who is not only incap able of running the estate properly but is also almost completely out of touch with reality; when she first inter views Roderick she demands to know whether he ” . . . came on shore on the back of a whale or a dolphin?”5^ and very shortly thereafter she becomes convinced that she is a cat rather than a human being.59 As for Narcissa’s brother, the young squire, he is pictured as a drunken, brutal, fox hunting wretch who is totally devoid of good sense and of affection for his sister. He wants, in fact, to marry Narcissa to Sir Timothy Thicket, another young squire exactly like himself. It is made perfectly clear that Roderick possesses the personal characteristics and abilities that Narcissa's aunt and brother lack. He is shown to be vastly superior in learning and literary ability to the half-crazy aunt, and it is implied that he would be a better "manager” than either the aunt or the brother. Even the other servants recognize this; one of them informs Roderick that "... if she [the servant] had a husband like me, to maintain order, and keep accounts, she could 5%orks. ed. Maynadier, II, 170. 59lbid., II, 176. _______ 72 make a great deal of money by setting up an eating-house at London. . . ."^0 When the brutal Sir Timothy Thicket attempts to rape Narcissa, it is Roderick who comes to her rescue and shows himself to be a "true gentleman." This rescue gives Roderick an opportunity to reveal his love for Narcissa, but it also is the cause of their separation. Once again Roderick is faced with the problem of arbitrary power in the hands of brutal, heartless, revengeful men. Mrs. Sagely warns him that Indeed I cannot see how you will be able to elude his vengeance; being himself in the commission, he will immediately grant warrants for apprehending you; and as almost all the people in this county are dependent on him or his friend (Narcissa*s brother), it will be impossible for you to find shelter among them. If you should be apprehended, he will commit you to jail, where you may possibly languish in great misery till the next assizes, and then be transported for assaulting a magistrate.61 Implicit in Mrs. Sagely*s warning is the premise that when "bad" men are in positions of power and authority, there is no possibility of real justice. Obviously, "good" men are what is needed and, as we have already seen, Roderick is being gradually (and painfully) prepared for such a position. In spite of Mrs. Sagely*s apprehensions, Roderick does manage to elude the vengeance of Sir Timothy and Narcissa’s brother. In making good his escape, however, he is seized by smugglers and carried off to France. While in 6oIbid., II, 1S5. 6lIbid.. II, 1S9. 73 France he again encounters his uncle, Tom Bowling, but finds that Bowling is still not in a position to help him. When Bowling prepares to return to England to attempt to gain "justice" at the Navy office, Roderick again reflects upon Bowling*s lack of experience in the world: I could not help smiling at the description of my uncle’s ladder, by which he proposed to climb to the attention of the Board of Admiralty; and though I knew the world too well, to confide in such dependence myself, I would not discourage him with doubts; but asked if he had no friend in London, who would advance a small sum of money to enable him to appear as he ought, and make a small present to the under secretary, who might possibly despatch his business the sooner on that account. . . . I was heartily sorry to find a worthy man so destitute of friends, when he had such need of them; and looked upon my own situation as less miserable than his, because I was better acquainted with the selfish ness and roguery of mankind, consequently less liable to disappointment and imposition.62 After Bowling’s return to England, Roderick wanders around France in what is actually a comic version of the "grand tour." This "tour" provides numerous opportunities for anti-French satire, and eventually, when he is in serious danger of starvation, Roderick "... decides to join the army, and as the French army happens to be the I nearest one, he joins that, and fights against the British at the battle of Dettingen: he is nevertheless ready soon afterwards to fight a duel with a Frenchman who has insulted Britain."^3 it is clear that Roderick remains loyal to 62Ibid., II, 197-19$. ^^Orwell, Collected Essays. Journalism and Letters. Ill, 246. 74 Britain in spirit even though economic necessity forces him into the opposing army. His observations upon the "patriotism" of a French soldier show clearly that he has nothing but contempt for the "motives" which inspire that "patriotism": . . . I was amazed at the infatuation that possessed him; and could not help expressing my astonishment at the absurdity of a rational being, who thinks himself highly honoured in being permitted to encounter abject poverty, oppression, famine, disease, mutilation, and evident death, merely to gratify the vicious ambition of a prince, by whom his sufferings were disregarded, and his name utterly unknown.&4 Eventually Roderick again encounters his old friend and servant, Strap, and is elated to find that Strap has been lucky and now has a small sum of money which he is eager to " . . . surrender to your absolute disposal. After accepting Strap’s money and buying his way out of the French army, Roderick remarks that The business was to make ourselves easy for life, by means of his legacy, a task very difficult, and, in the usual methods of laying out money, altogether imprac ticable .... when I thought of turning merchant, the smallness of our stock, and the risk of seas, enemies, and markets, deterred me from that scheme. If I should settle as a surgeon in my own country, I would find the business already overstocked; or, if I pretended to set up in England, must labour under want of friends, and powerful opposition, obstacles insurmountable by the most shining merit. Neither should I succeed in my endeavors to rise in the state, inasmuch as I could neither flatter nor pimp for courtiers, nor prostitute my pen in defence of a wicked and contemptible admin istration. 66 64works. ed. Maynadier, II, 215. 65lbid.. II, 228. 66Ibid.. II, 229 75 It is finally Strap who hits upon a possible solution for the problem of making themselves "easy for life"; his "plan" is stated in the following terms: • • . I see none so likely to succeed, as your appearing in the character of a gentleman, (which is your due,) and making your addresses to some lady of fortune, who can render you independent at once. . . . I affirm that this scheme is both prudent and honourable; for I would not have you throw yourself away upon an old toothless wheezing dame, whose breath would stink you into a consumption in less than three months. Neither would I advise you to assume the character of a wealthy squire, as your common fortune-hunters do, by which means many a poor lady is cheated into matrimony, and, instead of enjoying the pomp and grandeur that was promised, sees her dowry seized by her husband’s rapacious creditors, and herself reduced to misery and despair. No, I know you have a soul that disdains such imposition, and are master of qualifications both of mind and body, which alone entitle you to a match that will set you above the world.67 Roderick consents to Strap’s proposal and the scene again shifts to London and to an examination of "high society." Some critics, despite Strap’s observations con cerning Roderick’s "qualifications" and what he is "entitled" to, have been distressed by the fact that Roder ick accepts Strap’s proposal and agrees to become a "fortune-hunter." Apparently, however, Smollett does not mean to completely condemn the practice of "fortune-hunting" as long as the man who engages in it possesses "modest 67lbid., II, 230. 6^0rwell, Collected Essays. Journalism and Letters. Ill, 246. 76 merit" and is honest about his real financial condition. ^ 9 Nevertheless, the entire fortune-hunting episode is devoted to condemnation of the vices which most fortune-hunters (including Roderick) tend to engage in (borrowing money, gambling, drinking, etc.), and to attacks upon the shallow, selfish, meaningless way of life of both the fortune-hunters and their prospective "victims." Furthermore, it is most important to note that Roderick is, from the very beginning, singularly unsuccessful as a fortune-hunter. The first young "lady" he attempts to "court" turns out to be a prostitute; he exclaims, "But, 0 Heavens! instead of ban queting on the ambrosial flavour that her delicacy of complexion promised, I was almost suffocated with the steams of Geneval"7° This sets the pattern for his subsequent disappointments and mortifications among the members of the beau monde in London. In many of these episodes Roderick is the prospective "victim" rather than the aggressor; the corrupt and decadent Earl Strutwell swindles Roderick out of several valuable possessions and then attempts to lure him 69a is important to remember that Smollett himself was a successful "fortune-hunter" who married a wealthy young lady in Jamaica (see Knapp, Tobias Smollett: Doctor of Men and Manners, pp. 36-39)* Also, Smollett’s final [comment on "fortune-hunting" appears in his final novel, Humphry Clinker, when Lismahago marries Tabitha Bramble. As jwe shall see in a later chapter, this instance of fortune- hunting is presented as a positive "good" rather than as a necessary "evil." 70works, ed. Maynadier, II, 237. 77 into a homosexual relationship, 71 and when Roderick later believes that he has captured the attention of a rich young heiress he is horrified to learn that his secret admirer is in fact " . . . a wrinkled hag, turned of seventy!"72 Eventually the scene shifts from London to Bath and the "fashionable” way of life there is, if anything, even worse. As one critic observes, "Bath itself now becomes the object of satire— its odors, deceits, and intrigues are the main targets."73 It is also at Bath, however, that Roderick again meets Narcissa. This meeting, of course, gives rise to a great deal more of what we have already identified as the "hollow rhetoric" that is always produced when Roderick contemplates the "divine Narcissa"; for example, his reactions when he first sees her at a party at Bath are described as follows: Good Heaven! what were the thrillings of my soul at that instant! my reflection was overwhelmed with a torrent of agitation! my heart throbbed with surprising violence! a sudden mist overspread my eyes! my ears were invaded with a dreadful sound! I paused for want of breath, and, in short, was for some moments entrancedI74 After Roderick regains the use of his senses, he soon dis covers, to his great surprise, that Narcissa is also in love with him. Although he is overjoyed by this fact, he is nevertheless concerned that some of the enemies he has made 71lbid.. Ill, 35-40. 72Ibid., Ill, 42. 73spector, Tobias Smollett, p. 42. 74v/orks, ed. Maynadier, III, 96. 73 and some of the activities he has engaged in may prejudice her against him in spite of her love. His thoughts run as follows: . . . although it never was my intention to impose my self upon any woman, much less on Narcissa, as a man of fortune, I laid claim to the character of a gentleman, by birth, education, and behaviour; and yet, so unlucky had the circumstances of my life fallen out, I should find it a very hard matter to make good my pretensions even to these, especially to the last, which was the most essential.75 Roderick confesses these fears to Miss Williams, who is now Narcissa*s servant, and who now serves as a confidante for Roderick. She attempts to cheer him up by pointing out . . . that my indigence had been the crime not of me, but of fortune; and that the miseries I had undergone, by improving the faculties both of mind and body, qualified me the more for my dignified station, and would of consequence recommend me to the good graces of any sensible woman. She, therefore, advised me to be always open and unreserved to the inquiries of my mistress . . . and trust to the strength of her love and reflection for the rest.76 As we have already observed, these are almost exactly the same terms in which Roderick’s father later evaluates Roderick’s "adventures” as preparation for the "good life." Roderick follows the advice given by Miss Williams and Narcissa does, in fact, refuse to believe the bad reports of Roderick’s character and activities which are circulated by his enemies. Her brother, however, upon whom her fortune depends, does believe them and as a result the situation appears hopeless. Events reach a climax when 75Ibid.. Ill, 105. 76ibid.. Ill, 106. Narcissa*s brother carries her by force away from Bath and makes her a virtual prisoner at his country estate. Roderick returns to London in despair, but finds some con solation when he learns that his uncle, Tom Bowling, has regained his position in the navy and may soon return to London and, possibly, supply Roderick with sufficient money to pursue his courtship of Narcissa. In order to hold out until Bowling*s return, however, Roderick consults his "friend,” Banter, a fellow fortune-hunter, and thus begins a whole new set of difficulties: . . . M no sooner understood that I had credit with a tailor, than he advised me to take off two or three suits of rich clothes, and convert them into cash, by selling them at half-price to a salesman in Monmouth Street. I was startled at this proposal, which I thought savoured a little of fraud; but he rendered it palatable, by observing, that in a few months I might be in a condition to do everybody justice; and, in the meantime, I was acquitted by the honesty of my inten tion. I suffered myself to be persuaded by his salvo, by which my necessity, rather than my judgment, was convinced; and when I found there were no accounts of the ship in which my uncle embarked, actually put the scheme in practice, and raised by it five and twenty guineas, paying him for his advice with the odd five.'' Very shortly after Roderick accepts Banter’s "advice," the tailor discovers what has happened, and as a result Roderick is arrested and thrown into prison as a debtor. Thus begins the final major episode in Roderick’s adventures. Like the earlier episode concerning Miss Williams, this part of the novel is concerned with the misfortunes and sufferings of a person other than Roderick. 77lbid.. III. 15L-155. g o In this case it is Melopoyn, a poet who has been reduced to misery and near starvation. It is known, of course, that what Smollett does in this episode is present a thinly dis guised account of his own (Smollett’s) sufferings and hardships when he came to London and attempted to get his tragedy, The Regicide, produced.7^ The story of Melopoyn does, however, clearly relate to the theme of the novel in that it provides still another instance of "modest merit" struggling against the "selfishness, envy, malice, and base indifference of mankind." After hearing Melopoyn’s story, Roderick remarks that . . . the reader must perceive how egregiously the simplicity and milky disposition of this worthy man had been duped and abused by a set of scoundrels, who were so habituated to falsehood and equivocation, that I verily believe they would have found the utmost difficulty in uttering one syllable of truth, though their lives had depended upon their sincerity. Notwith standing all I had suffered from the knavery and selfishness of mankind, I was amazed and incensed at the base indifference which suffered such uncommon merit as he possessed to languish in obscurity, and struggle with all the miseries of a loathsome jail* It is clear that the story of Melopoyn does give Roderick an insight into still another area of life where "modest merit" suffers outrageously for no reason. It is also clear, however, that this episode is the least important of the five major episodes and is the one which could most easily be eliminated without any real damage to the novel. As we 7®Spector, Tobias Smollett, p. 42. ?9works. ed. Mavnadier, III, 196. 81 have seen, the Miss Williams episode is more important because it gives Roderick an insight into a way of life that he has previously seen only superficially, and Miss Williams herself later becomes an important character. Also, the Miss Williams episode serves as a realistic antidote to Roderick*s later idealized musings upon the virtues of the "divine Narcissa." In the episode concerning Melopoyn, however, his experiences among patrons and theater managers are very similar to Roderick*s own experiences in the Navy office and as an influence-seeker at the home of the decadent, deceiving Earl Strutwell. The turning point in Roderick Random comes when Tom Bowling returns to London and secures Roderick’s release from prison. Bowling, who is now captain of his own ship, proposes that Roderick accompany him as medical officer on a slave-trading expedition to South America. Roderick does so, and in far-off Paraguay he discovers his long-lost father, now transformed into a wealthy landowner and gentle man. This "coincidence" certainly deserves John Barth’s comment that "... the long-lost wealthy parent who turns up like Daddy Warbucks in the nick of time— perhaps the less 80 said about that clanking device the better." It is obvious that, as in the earlier episodes dealing with Roderick’s "passion" for the "divine Narcissa," Smollett is ^Afterword to Roderick Random, p. 471. B2 again interested in "ideals" rather than in showing "ordin ary life as it is." In other words, as Smollett said in the Preface, and as we have seen in our examination of the novel, Roderick Random is a study of "modest merit" struggling against the "selfishness, envy, malice, and base indifference of mankind," and when that struggle ends, the final few chapters are devoted to indicating what Roderick’s life will be like, now that he has finally achieved the station in life to which his birth and education entitle him. As we have seen, Roderick’s father and Miss Williams have pointed out to him that the very fact that he has had such experiences and has endured such difficulties will enable him to live and enjoy the "good life" more fully. Roderick observes in the last paragraph of the novel, If there be such a thing as true happiness on earth I enjoy it. The impetuous transports of my passion are now mellowed into endearing fondness and tranquility of love, rooted by that intimate connexion and interchange of hearts, which nought but virtuous wedlock can pro duce.— Fortune seems determined to make ample amends for her former cruelty. . . ,°1 "Virtuous wedlock" is obviously a key part of the "good life" for Roderick, but even more important is finan cial security. All of Roderick’s experiences have jdemonstrated that unless a man is "independent for life" he will remain a "tennis ball" which the "devil" (selfish, envious, malicious, and basely indifferent mankind) will ^ Works. ed. Maynadier, III, 260. S3 continue to strike forcefully forever. Birth, education, honor, skill, and good intentions are all wasted unless one has the money. Ironically, the fairy-tale ending of Roderick Random is, in a sense, the most grimly pessimistic aspect of the novel: as we have seen, the nine-tenths of the novel devoted to scenes of misery, cruelty, hardships, suffering, and brutality are Smollett’s portrait of "ordinary life as it is,” and the one-tenth devoted to "true love" and "triumph" over this depraved world are unrealistic and unconvincing. One wonders just how many young men of "modest merit" would be so fortunate as to find a long-lost father in Paraguay. The only other method for attaining the "good life" which is presented in the novel is that of narrying a "fortune." Roderick’s two friends, Morgan and Thompson, succeed in doing so, but again one wonders how typical these cases actually are: Roderick’s own experiences as a fortune-hunter indicate that they are extremely rare. Another basis for dissatisfaction concerning the "happy" ending of Roderick Random is the fact that at the end of the novel the world is no better than it was to start with. Roderick’s father, "Don Rodrigo," purchases the family estate and Roderick, Narcissa, and their friends and dependents retire to a quiet life in the country— but there is no evidence that the miserable, corrupt, and brutal conditions Roderick has experienced at the Navy office, *4 aboard ship, in high society, or in prison (Melopoyn remains in prison, but Bowling and Roderick do give him enough money to keep him from starving to death) are any better than they 6ver were* It is, after all, a slave ship that Roderick sails on to South America, and, as one critic has pointed out, "His service on Uncle Tom Bowling's slave ship he finds 'disagreeable,1 merely— and not on moral grounds at that, but because the Negroes have the bad grace to die in large go numbers * . • during their six weeks in the hold." Once the slaves are unloaded Roderick says, with unintentional irony, that "Our ship being freed from the disagreeable lading of negroes, to whom, indeed, I had been a miserable slave since our leaving the coast of Guinea, I began to enjoy myself. * . ."^3 Still later, when the ship returns successfully to England, we are casually informed that they were " . • • obliged to turn into St. Helen's, and come to Spithead, to the great mortification of the crew, thirty of whom were immediately pressed on board of a man-of-war."34 Roderick offers no judgment upon this fact— he merely reports that it happened. These episodes could, of course, be used to build a strong argument in favor of the proposi tion that Roderick himself, once he is restored to his 32john Barth, Afterword to Roderick Random, p. 472. &3works. ed. Maynadier, III, 219. g4ibid.. Ill, 236. "proper" position in life, exhibits a large measure of the "base indifference" which has been deplored throughout the novel* As we noted earlier, the readerfs "heart" is supposed to be "improved" by the examples provided in Roderick Random, and passages like those cited above cause one to wonder just how that "improvement" is supposed to come about. It is true, of course, that Roderick has shown that he is benevolent and concerned for others on several occasions— those which have shown his kindness to Miss Williams, his desire to help the sick and wounded at Carthagena, his sympathy for and assistance to Melopoyn, and his kindness after he has regained his "proper" position, to the man who has done him the greatest harm— Dr. Mackshane. On his way home from South America, Roderick’s friend Thompson informs him that Mackshane is in prison, is desti tute of friends, and is suffering in the "most abject manner." When Roderick hears this he says that "whatsoever this wretch might have been guilty of . . . his distress . . . wrought so much upon me . . . that I sent him ten pistoles, in such a private manner, that he could never know his benefactor."^5 Later, however, when Roderick and his father return to the town where Roderick was educated, Roderick’s former landlord, Mr. Potion, is not treated so kindly: ________35Ibid., Ill, 233._________________________________ 36 Mr. Potion and his wife, hearing of our arrival, had the assurance to come to the inn where we lodged, and send up their names, with a desire of being permitted to pay their respects to my father and me; but their sordid behaviour towards me, when I was an orphan, had made too deep an impression on my mind, to be effaced by this mean mercenary piece of condescension. I therefore rejected their message with disdain, and bade Strap tell them, that my father and I desired to have no communi cation with such low-minded wretches as they were.®° The difference between the ways in which Roderick reacts in these two situations is determined by a very simple prin ciple: Roderick’s great "enemy," Mackshane, really does need help and charity, whereas the lesser enemy, Potion, is not in a desperate condition and is therefore not entitled to Roderick’s "benevolence." We thus see that the final picture of the "good life" that is presented in Roderick Random is not an entirely satisfactory one. First of all, the nature of that "good life" is presented only sketchily— and in some respects the sketch is rather vague. Financial security is obviously the most important requirement for the "good life," and "virtuous wedlock" is also very important. Country life is obviously preferable over city life, and the "leader" of this life should be a "gentleman" by birth and education, should be a man who has had varied and extensive experience in the world, and should be a man who is benevo lent and charitable to the downtrodden, the poor, and the helpless (except, apparently, to unrepentant whores, Negro d6Ibid., Ill, 256. 67 slaves, and common seamen in the British navy). It is obvious that the character of the country gentleman who controls and directs this "good life" is the key which determines whether or not it exists, and even when it does exist it is limited to the estate under the control of this "good leader." It is clear that in Roderick Random the concept of the "good life" serves primarily as an ideal toward which Roderick strives and for which, in the process of striving, he prepares himself. The idea that Roderick is a man who, by birth, education, behavior, and experience, could be and should be a leader makes the "variegated tour of the world" which constitutes nine-tenths of the novel more meaningful and moving than it would otherwise be. In most of the specific episodes the difference between how things should be and how they actually are is reasonably i clear, but, as we have seen, the supposedly "happy" ending leaves the reader unsatisfied on two important counts: (A) the evil in life is presented too convincingly and the "good" is not presented convincingly enough, and (B) there is no evidence that the world in general will ever improve; there is only evidence that a relatively few individuals will— through miraculous luck and coincidence— escape from it. If the treatment of the concept of the "good life" in Smollett’s other four novels were the same as it is in Roderick Random, it would obviously be absurd for anyone to as speak of any "development” of the concept. This, however, is not the case. It is true that all five of Smollett’s novels use the same device of a "variegated tour of the world," and that the general outlines of what constitutes the "good life" remain the same in all five novels. In Smollett’s second novel, however, those outlines are not so vague and unsatisfying as they are in Roderick Random. CHAPTER III THE GOOD LIFE AND THE ROGUE: PEREGRINE PICKLE AND FERDINAND COUNT FATHOM There has long been a tendency among most critics to view Smollett’s second novel, Peregrine Pickle, as merely "more of the same" of what is found in Roderick Random. Critics who approach Smollett’s first two novels from this point of view invariably conclude that the second work is "inferior" to the first, and such conclusions are ultimately based upon the premise that Smollett was trying to do exactly the same thing in exactly the same way in both works. Frank W. Chandler, for example, has stated that l " . . . Peregrine Pickle • • . lacks even the unity of Random . . . and that "In plan and incidents this novel [Peregrine Picklej is a reflection of its predecessor and is inferior because the hero "... is malicious and depraved."1 Lionel Stevenson echoes these sentiments when he says that "... Peregrine Pickle showed no marked advance over Roderick Random. . . . it keeps the picaresque unilinear construction, and Peregrine is a more sordid rogue - * - The Literature of Roguery (2 vols.J Boston: Houghton Mifflin and Company, 1907), II, 312-313. 39 90 than Roderick."2 Even George Orwell, who is basically sym pathetic to Smollett, concludes that the only major difference between the two works is the fact that "... Peregrine is somewhat the greater blackguard, because he has no profession. • • ."3 Finally, George Sherburn does not even see a basic moral difference between the protagonists of Smollett’s first two novels; he says that "... Smollett created for his second novel . . . an English hero, who might well have been Roderick’s twin."^ Observations such as those noted above are mislead ing because they are based upon an erroneous premise. Smollett does not attempt to do the same thing in the same way in both novels. There are important differences in purpose, point of view, and structure between Roderick Random and Peregrine Pickle, and one very important result of those differences is the fact that the concept of the "good life" is examined in much greater detail in Peregrine Pickle than it is in Roderick Random. It is true, of course, that there are general similarities between the two ^The English Novel? A Panorama (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, I960), p. 111. 3"Tobias Smollett: Scotland’s Best Novelist" in The Collected Essays. Journalism and Letters of George Orwell, ed. Sonia Orwell and Ian Angus (4 vols.; New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, Inc., 196S), III, 246. ^"The Restoration and Eighteenth Century" in A Literary History of England, ed. Albert C. Baugh (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 194&), P« 962. 91 novels— as indeed there are among all five of Smollett’s novels. The identification of such similarities should, however, serve as the starting point for an examination of Peregrine Pickle rather than as the final conclusion in such an examination. The two most obvious and important general similar ities between Roderick Random and Peregrine Pickle are (A) the fact that both novels are, broadly speaking, satir ical attacks upon a corrupt, evil world, and (B) the fact that a "variegated tom* of the world" is the device used in both novels as the basic principle of organization. George M. Kahrl correctly identifies these general similarities when he states that "... Smollett interpreted his experiences more like a traveler than a biographer or I c historian . . . and when he describes the common quality in all of Smollett’s works as an " , . . abiding interest in comparative manners."^ Kahrl concludes, however, that "With an abundance of material at his disposal, he (SmollettJ was faced with the task of selection and emphasis. • • ."7 As we have seen, this "task of selection and emphasis" is accomplished in Roderick Random by making the hero a sympa thetic character who is forced to wander extensively and who suffers greatly from the "selfishness, envy, malice, and ^Tobias Smollett: Traveler-Novelist (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1945), p* 25» 6Ibid.. p. 151. 7Ibid.. p. 152. 92 base indifference of mankind.” The ”tour of the world” and the emphasis upon the vicious and corrupt nature of "man kind” are elements which Smollett*s first two novels have in common, and in each of them the central character prepares for the "good life" and attains it at the end of the novel. In Roderick Random, however, this "good life" is, as we have seen, presented in the form of rather vague ideals, and Roderick*s attainment of it depends upon a few very simple— perhaps oversimplified— factors: birth and education, varied experience in the world, financial security, virtuous wedlock, and rural retirement. We shall see that in Peregrine Pickle Smollett chose to accomplish his "task of selection and emphasis" in a more complicated and sophisti cated manner, and as a result the picture of what constitutes the "good life"— and of how to attain it— is more complex, interesting, and convincing than it is in Roderick Random. The first and most important difference between Smollett*s first and second novels is a difference in pur- pose. Peregrine Pickle was published in 1751, three years %he 1751 edition was revised and shortened by some 79 pages in 1757, and this later edition of the work became standard. I shall refer to this later edition throughout this chapter. The principal difference between the two versions is the fact that in the later version Smollett eliminated some rather tasteless personal attacks upon Garrick, Fielding, Lord Chesterfield, Lord Lyttleton, and Mr. Quin, the actor. The original 1751 edition has recently been re-issued, and the introduction to that edition gives a detailed account of the various changes which Smollett 93 after Roderick Random. Smollett did not write a preface for this second novel as he did for his first, but he did write one two years later for his third novel, Ferdinand Count Fathom (1753)*^ This preface to Count Fathom shows clearly that Smollett had modified and expanded his concept of the nature and function of the novel.Whereas the preface to Roderick Random states that the work will show "modest merit” struggling against a corrupt and evil world and will thus arouse the reader’s "generous indignation," the preface fco Count Fathom defines a novel as . . . a large diffused picture, comprehending the characters of life, disposed in different groups, and exhibited in various attitudes, for the purpose of an uniform plan, and general occurrence, to which every individual figure is subservient. But this plan cannot be executed with propriety, probability, or success, without a principal personage to attract the attention, unite the incidents, unwind the clue of the labyrinth, and at last close the scene, by virtue of his own import ance.H made. See James L. Clifford, Introduction to Peregrine IPickle (London: Oxford University Press, 1964), pp. xv- xxix. ^The best recent discussion of the relationship of the preface to Count Fathom to Smollett’s first two novels is that of William fe. Piper, "The Large Diffused Picture of Life in Smollett’s Early Novels" Studies in Philology. LX (1963), 45-56. l^For a discussion of possible reasons for this change see Tuvia Bloch, "Smollett’s Quest for Form," Modern Philology. LXV (1967), 103-113* Bloch argues forcefully that the great success of Fielding’s Tom Jones may be one important reason for the change. See also lames L. Clif ford’s Introduction to the Oxford edition of Peregrine Pickle, p. xv. - 1 3 - The Works of Tobias Smollett, ed. G. H. Maynadier (12 vols.; Wew York: The Athenaeum Society, 1902), VIII, 3. 94 Smollett makes it clear that he has deliberately chosen a scoundrel for his "principal personage" rather than a young man of "modest merit" because . . . for one that is allured to virtue, by the con templation of that peace and happiness which it bestows, a hundred are deterred from the practice of vice, by that infamy and punishment to which it is liable, from the laws and regulations of mankind. Let me not, therefore, be condemned for having chosen my principal character from the purlieus of treachery and fraud, when I declare my purpose is to set him up as a beacon for the benefit of the unexper ienced and unwary, who, from the perusal of these memoirs, may learn to avoid the manifold snares with which they are continually surrounded in the paths of life; while those who hesitate on the brink of iniquity may be terrified from plunging into that irremediable gulf, by surveying the deplorable fate of Ferdinand Count Fathom.12 Smollett’s "principal personage" in Peregrine Pickle is pictured as a man who is neither as good as Roderick nor as evil as Ferdinand. He does indeed "hesitate on the brink of iniquity." In other words, Peregrine Pickle is a study of character development rather than a history of a young man of fixed character. Whereas Roderick Random takes the form of the memoirs of a "good" man, and Ferdinand Count Fathom is an expos/ of a "bad" man, Peregrine Pickle is the record of how a basically good man struggles against the potential for evil within himself. Rufus Putney has done an excellent study of Peregrine Pickle which clearly and convincingly supports the premise that 12Ibid.. VIII, 3-4 95 Instead of the poverty and distress displayed in Roderick Random. Smollett was now concerned with the aristocratic and wealthy. The subject matter eloquently proclaims that he meant to write a satire on the affec tations and meannesses, the follies and vices that flourished among the upper classes in order that his readers might learn with Peregrine the emptiness of titles, the sordidness of avarice, the triviality of wealth and honors, and the folly of misguided ambition .... The life and adventures of Peregrine Pickle were . . . carefully planned to promote the aims of the satire.13 Putney also points out that the difference in purpose between Smollett’s first two novels leads to a different sort of conclusion in Peregrine Pickle from what was found in Roderick Random: he says that Between Roderick Random and Peregrine Pickle . . . there is an important difference. Whereas in the first novel the series of episodes adds up to nothing more than the history of Roderick’s early life and a "repre sentation of the sordid and vicious disposition of the world," the sum of the episodes in Peregrine Pickle is the plot which ends in Peregrine’s renunciation of the world for the joys of a tranquil life. . . The argument which Putney presents to support his contention that Peregrine’s moral development is the central issue in the novel is overwhelmingly convincing, and makes clear that Smollett’s purpose in Peregrine Pickle is more complex and sophisticated than it was in Roderick Random. The second major difference between Roderick Random and Peregrine Pickle, the change in point of view from first-person to third-person, is very closely associated •*-3«»The Plan of Peregrine Pickle." PMLA. LX (1945), 1053. 14Ibid.. p. 1061. 96 with the first major difference. In order to accomplish a jmore ambitious purpose, Smollett employs a more complex method. The significance of this change in point of view can be inferred from what one critic has observed concerning the importance of the point of view in Roderick Random: Roderick the narrator is an eighteenth-century man trained in the literary conventions of English neo- classicism. He is the humane man of letters who transcends in his style the chaos of his earlier char acter and of the world in general. The implication is that the world is chaotic and people may be so too, but that there are alternatives to this disorganization. The contemplative pose of the narrator represents such an alternative. Though the narrator’s detachment, his calm of mind, throws the world’s chaos into relief in Roderick Random, though it shows how different the world is from the norms and expectations of civilized man, it also seems to say that the world can be over come to the extent that we can finally contemplate it and calmly despise it.15 Since Peregrine does not tell his own story, there are in effect two "contemplative poses” which suggest "alterna tives" to the "chaotic world." Peregrine, like Roderick, is usually able to see what is wrong with the world in general, but he is woefully unaware of the part he himself often plays in the general "chaos." Ronald Paulson describes the importance of this fact as follows: Smollett has changed from a first-person to a third- person narrative, and so he assumes the role of satirist himself, stopping to lash his characters ver bally from time to time. There is, accordingly, a 15 Stuart Miller, The Picaresque Novel (Cleveland: The Press of Case Western Reserve University, 1967), pp. 124-125. court of appeals above and beyond Peregrine Pickle, the satirist within the novel.1° The third major difference between Roderick Random and Peregrine Pickle, the difference in structure, is to a large extent a result of the first two differences. As we have already observed, all of Smollett’s novels employ the basic structural device of a "variegated tour of the world" and in that way Peregrine Pickle is, indeed, a "reflection of its predecessor." However, it is also clear that the important changes in purpose and point of view mean that this "tour" in Peregrine Pickle is not presented in the same way or for the same reasons as was the "tour" in Roderick Random. Roderick’s "tour" was motivated by necessity; he needed to acquire financial security and he gained knowledge of the ways of the world in the process of striving for that goal. Peregrine, however, has financial security at the time he begins his "tour of the world," and he himself views this tour in terms of the opportunities it provides for him to obtain personal gratification and actively to expose, ridicule, and chastise the follies and affectations of "mankind." The anonymous narrator, however, views Peregrine’s adventures in terms also of Peregrine’s moral growth and development, and thus a greater variety of individual scenes, episodes, and characters is introduced 16«Satire in the Early Novels of Smollett," Journal of English and Germanic Philology. LIX (I960), 393. 9$ and each of them is examined in greater depth. It is significant that Peregrine himself does not even appear in the first fifty pages of the novel and that he is actually a minor character for almost another fifty pages after his first appearance. One other point needs to be made concerning the structure of Peregrine Pickle: the novel is hopelessly marred by the introduction of two long and boring inset narratives— the "Memoirs of a Lady of Quality" and an account of the famous Annesley Case. It is true, of course, that Roderick Random also contains two inset narratives— the history of Miss Williams and the story of Melopoyn— but, as we have seen, they do not seriously damage the continuity or the unity of the story. This is not true, however, of the two insets in Peregrine Pickle. There is no point in attempting to defend Smollett from the charge of showing both bad taste and bad judgment in this matter. As we shall see, Peregrine Pickle is superior to Roderick Random insofar as it presents a more complete and satisfying picture of the good life and of how to attain it, but Pickle is inferior to Random in the sense that one must wade through two large blocks of tedious drivel in order to get that more complete and satisfying picture. Very simply, these inset narratives are interruptions and digressions in the presentation of the concept of the good life in Peregrine Pickle, and it is therefore probably best to attempt to account for, briefly 99 to examine, and finally to dismiss them before beginning an analysis of the presentation of that concept in the novel. Ironically, the "Memoirs of a Lady of Quality" was the part of Peregrime Pickle which attracted the most attention when the novel was first published.These "memoirs" are an account of the life and loves of the 1 $ notorious Lady Vane. Smollett’s exact role in the writing of these "memoirs" has long been a subject of controversy,^ but Rufus Putney has presented a very strong argument in support of the thesis that "... Lady Vane furnished the materials which Smollett whipped into form" and that " . . . we shall be on surest ground, until conclusive evidence to the contrary is presented, if we continue to believe that Lady Vane had an active collaborator and that he was Tobias on Smollett." In other words, Smollett’s role was that of a ghost writer who merely organized and polished the material provided by Lady Vane. The best that can be said for these "memoirs" has probably been said by Robert D. Spector, who defends the inclusion of them by stating that •^Fred W. Boege, Smollett’s Reputation as a Novelist (Princeton, N. J.: Princeton University Rress, 1947), pp. 6-9. •^Howard S. Buck, A Study in Smollett (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1925), pp» 3&-52. l^Lewis M. Knapp, Tobias Smollett: Doctor of Men and Manners (New York: Russell and Russell, 1963), p. 2ll. 20"Smollett and Lady Vane’s Memoirs," Philological Quarterly. XXV (1946), 126. 100 Although the tone of Lady Vane’s narrative suggests the novel of sentiment and although she herself has some of the qualities of the sentimental heroine, her story ... provides an expose of the ’vices and depravity of aristocratic society’ .... When she describes a lover v»ho, graced with every advantage of appearance and manners, can overcome every female heart and make con quests while refusing to surrender his liberty in marriage, her description obliquely comments upon Perry .... (and] what she has learned about the world through her . . . experiences coincides with the knowl edge that Perry • • . has gained.21 All this is true— but one wonders if over 30,000 words are really necessary to make this "comment" upon Perry’s exper iences. The fact remains that this digression is much too long and that it is the most boring part of the novel. Unlike Perry, Lady Vane does not actively expose, ridicule, and chastise the follies and affectations which she sees, and since her story is told in first-person there is no higher "court of appeals" from which her story can be evalu- 22 ated. As Rufus Putney has pointed out, Smollett’s contribution to these "memoirs" is in the area of style Tobias Smollett (New York: Twayne Publishing Co., 196S), p. S3. For a more general discussion of the "tradi tion" of inset narratives and a detailed examination of Smollett’s "contributions" to the tradition see Mary L. Skinner, The Interpolated Story in Selected Novels of Fielding and Smollett (Unpublished Doctoral dissertation. University of Tennessee, 196S). 22 It is, of course, very tempting to suppose that Smollett included Lady Vane’s story in Peregrine Pickle in order to provide conclusive documentary evidence of the moral corruption and the silliness which the rest of the novel shows to be the chief characteristics of members of the nobility and the "beau monde." The portrait of Lady Vane which appears in the "memoirs" certainly accomplishes that purpose, but— alas!— there is no evidence whatsoever that this was Smollett’s intention. 101 rather than that of content; he does indeed provide "... energy, . . . vocabulary, and • . . mastery of that most difficult matter, the art of making smooth transitions."2^ Ironically, however, the "energy" and "vocabulary" are wasted in the telling of an intrinsically uninteresting and repetitious story, and the "smooth transitions" function within the "memoirs" like well made bridges connecting one quagmire with another. The second of the inset narratives in Peregrine Pickle— the account of Daniel MacKercher and the Annesley Claimant^— is less offensive than the first. For one thing, it is less than half as long as Lady Vanefs story and therefore cannot seriously contend with the "Memoirs of a Lady of Quality" as a soporific of truly epic proportions. Robert D. Spector defends the inclusion of this inset by stating that The MacKercher inset bears an even closer relationship to the main narrative. Once more the journey motif allows MacKercher to wander, investigate, and exper ience in picaresque fashion .... the episode func tions in the novel through its attacks on injustice and through its example of how social forces can triumph over truth. Perry, already uneasy in prison, responds to the tale of MacKercher*s misfortunes by throwing himself into despondency, by reaching his spiritual nadir; it serves as the climax of the novel. Smollett leaves no doubt of the story’s effect on Perry, who 23”Smollett and Lady Vane’s Memoirs," p. 126. 24see Lewis M. Knapp and Lillian de la Torre, "Smollett, MacKercher, and the Annesley Claimant," English Language Notes. I (19o3), 23-33• 102 regards the proceedings as evidence of ’inhuman neglect’ and characteristic human ungratefulness.2^ Again, it is true that there is a general relationship between Perry’s experiences and those of MacKercher and the Annesley claimant. Spector is dead wrong, however, in his implication that the story of the Annesley case is the cause of Perry’s "spiritual nadir" and in his assertion that the story "serves as the climax of the novel." When the priest who relates the story of the Annesley case to Perry con cludes his narrative, Peregrine’s reaction is described as follows: Peregrine, having thanked the priest for his obliging information, expressed his surprise at the scandalous inattention of the world to an affair of such impor tance; observing, that, by such inhuman neglect, this unfortunate young gentleman, Mr. A— y, was absolutely deprived of all the benefits of society; the sole end of which is, to protect the rights, redress the grievances, and promote the happiness of individuals. As for the character of M— [MacKercher) , he said, it was so romantically singular in all its circumstances, that, though other motives were wanting, curiosity alone would induce him to seek his acquaintance.26 The emphasis is upon Perry’s admiration for the character of M— rather than upon his outrage at the evidence of "char acteristic human ungratefulness." Perry does not reach his "spiritual nadir" until 25 pages after the conclusion of the Annesley digression, and the cause of his reaching it is described as follows: ^ Tobias Smollett, p. ^^Works, ed. Maynadier, VII, 251-252 103 . • . Peregrine’s disposition . . . was so capricious, that the more his misery increased, the more haughty and inflexible he became. . . . He was gradually irritated by his misfortunes into a rancorous resent ment against mankind in general, and his heart so alienated from the enjoyments of life, that he did not care how soon he quitted his miserable existence.2' It is at this point that the climax of the novel occurs. Spector is right when he says that "It is only natural ... that the second novel should invite comparison with the first," but he is wrong when he asserts that "what make such a comparison an appropriate starting point . .. are the obvious resemblances between the two works."2* * If nothing else, the inset narratives in Peregrine Pickle show clearly that Smollett’s second novel is not merely "more of the same" of what is to be found in his first. These digressions seriously weaken the structure of Peregrine Pickle and cause it to lack the sort of unity and coherence which characterize Roderick Random. Once we identify this major weakness, however, it is still possible to find in Peregrine Pickle a number of virtues which to a large extent compensate for this weakness. If we dismiss the insets as extraneous material which merely interrupts the story, we then find that the remainder of the novel does possess unity and coherence and that the important changes in pur pose and point of view enable Smollett to present a much 2?Ibid.a VII, 276-277. ^ Tobias Smollett, p. 62. 104 more complete and satisfying picture of the good life— and of how to attain it— than he presented in Roderick Random. There are three major ways in which Peregrine Pickle presents and examines the concept of the good life more effectively than does Roderick Random; (1) the opening episode of Peregrine presents clear and conclusive evidence that money alone is not all that is required for the good life; (2) Peregrine’s moral development demonstrates clearly that character is even more important than financial security; (3) a possible alternate form of the good life is presented, examined, and finally rejected. As we have already noted, Perry is not the main character in the first episode of the novel. The first 100 pages of Peregrine Pickle serve as a very useful and impor tant prelude to the story of Peregrine himself. As one critic has noted this opening episode is set in n . . . English village society, which is to say average English society in those days."29 The purpose of this episode is not— as it was of the opening episode of Roderick Random— to establish sympathy for an unfortunate young man of "modest merit," but rather to examine objectively the environment which will later produce the protagonist. The fact that the protagonist himself is not the person who does the examining increases the objectivity of the ^^Laurence Brander, Tobias Smollett (London: British Book Council, 1951;, pp« 13-19* 105 examination. What we get in the opening episode of Peregrine Pickle is a very effective presentation of the idea that money alone is not all that is required for the good life and that "virtuous wedlock" and rural retirement can be curses rather than blessings. In short, the first 100 pages of Peregrine Pickle serve as a very effective antidote to the over-simplified formula for the good life which is presented in Roderick Random. Peregrinefs father, Gamaliel Pickle, and Commodore Hawser Trunnion are the central characters in this first episode. Both men have financial security and both live in rural retirement. Neither, however, has managed to achieve the good life; Gamaliel Pickle has retired to the country for the wrong reason— an inability to cope with life in London— and he is cursed with an old maid sister, Mrs. Grizzle Pickle, who dominates him completely. His idea of the good life is to sit passively at the local inn and drink himself into oblivion: . . . dtr. Pickl§] having made a discovery of a public- house in the neighborhood, went thither every evening, and enjoyed his pipe and can; being very well satisfied with the behavior of the landlord, whose communicative temper was a great comfort to his own taciturnity; for he shunned all superfluity of speech, as much as he avoided any other unnecessary expense.3° It is from this "communicative landlord" that Mr. Pickle first hears of Hawser Trunnion, a retired naval officer, 3%orks. ed. Maynadier, IV, 6. 106 who is described as follows; . . . he has been a great warrior in his time, and lost an eye and a heel in the service. Then, he does not live like any other Christian land-man; but keeps garrison in his house, as if he were in the midst of his enemies and makes his servants turn out in the night, watch and watch, as he calls it, all the year round. His habitation is defended by a ditch, over which he has laid a drawbridge, and planted his court yard with patereroes continually loaded with shot In addition to his refusal to admit that he is no longer at sea, Trunnion has other personal eccentricities which make it impossible for him to lead a normal life; ... the Commodore lives very happy in his own manner; thof he be sometimes thrown into perilous passions and quandaries, by the application of his poor kinsmen, whom he can’t abide, because as how some of them were the first occasion of his going to sea. Then he sweats with agony at the sight of an attorney; just for all the world, as some people have an antipathy to a cat; for it seems he was once at law for striking one of his officers, and cast in a swingeing sum. He is, moreover, exceedingly afflicted with goblins that disturb his rest, and keep such a racket in his house, that you would think, God bless usl all the devils in hell had broke loose upon him.32 The landlord also informs Mr. Pickle that Trunnion has living with him two old friends from his sea-going days, Tom Pipes and Jack Hatchway, and implies that they frequently play upon Trunnion’s obsessions for their personal amuse ment. It is obvious that Mr. Pickle lacks the proper spirit and character to lead the good life, and Hawser Trunnion’s personality has been so warped by his experiences 31lbid., IV, 7-8. 32Ibid.. IV, 8 107 at sea that he is unable to live the quiet, idyllic life of a well-to-do country gentleman (the missing eye and heel are, of course, physical symbols of his distorted person ality). Thus it is established at the very beginning that character and personality are much more important than financial security as prerequisites for the good life. There is almost universal agreement among critics that Hawser Trunnion is one of Smollett*s greatest comic crea tions,^ and it is precisely his inability to lead the good life that provides the basis for most of the comedy. It is clear that Mr. Pickle and Trunnion lead a harmless sort of existence in their little society at the inn— but it is also clear that they are extremely vulnerable to the machinations and impositions of others— especially those of women such as Mr. Pickle’s sister, Grizzle. Trunnion has an irrational hatred for all women (it is really, of course, a fear), and he will not even allow his maids to sleep in his "garrison,” and Mr. Pickle is devoid of all passions, including love: Little subject to refined sensations, he was scarce ever disturbed with violent emotions of any kind. The passion of love never interrupted his tranquility . . . at least he was never known to betray the faintest symptom of transport, except one evening at the club, where he observed, with some demonstrations 33v. S. Pritchett, The Living Novel and Later Appreciations (New York: Random House, 1964), pp. 22-24« See also Knapp, Tobias Smollett: Doctor of Men and Manners, p. 31S. Knapp asserts that Trunnion and his crew were the inspiration behind Sterne’s Uncle Toby and Corporal Trim in iTristram Shandy. 108 of vivacity, that he had dined upon a delicate loin of veal.34 In Grizzle Pickle, who is described as " . • . now in the thirtieth year of her maidenhood, with a fortune of five thousand pounds, and a large stock of economy and devotion,"35 Smollett provides an excellent example of what lies ahead for eccentric bachelors such as Mr. Pickle and Trunnion. She lures her brother into a marriage with a young lady who turns out to be an insufferable shrew, and when her new sister-in-law turns on her, she sets her sights on Trunnion and tricks him into marrying her. Mr. Pickle’s "courtship” and Trunnion’s reluctant journey to the altar are perhaps the ftinniest parts of the novel, but they also set the stage for the appearance of the protagonist: This preparation is indeed a lengthy one for the hero’s emergence, but it contains some of the novel’s finest comic scenes, some of those intensive caricatures whose very exaggerated qualities give them a sense of incred ible credibility. Perhaps Smollett’s finest achievement in Peregrine Pickle comes in this gallery of characters • . . . Gamaliel’ Tickle, the hero’s father, develops as the paradigm of the henpecked husband; his sister Grizzle, as the model of the desperate, frustrated old maid; Commodore Trunnion, as the unforgetable, Quixotic curmudgeon, irascible and kind, ludicrous and sympa thetic. With Trunnion, especially, Smollett demonstrates his ability to give life to his bizarre characters. For all the Jonsonian type characteriza tions, his eccentrics come alive; and there is with Trunnion that same kind of growth and development, indi cating the author’s increasing admiration, that Cervantes achieves with Quixote and Dickens with 34Works, ed. Maynadier, 17, 3 35ibid.. IV, 3. 109 Pickwick. The comic takes on other dimensions,and becomes in turn a commentary on human values.3® This ’ ’commentary on human values” is, of course, a commentary on the possibilities for achieving the good life. Both Mr. Pickle and Trunnion have large fortunes, and an heir is needed for each fortune. The marriages of Mr. Pickle and Trunnion are unhappy in the sense that they destroy the peace of mind of both men, but these instances of ’ ’ virtuous wedlock” are fortunate in that one of them produces an heir for both fortunes. The marriage of Trunnion can even be described as "fortunate” in the sense that it provides a new field of battle for Trunnion, and it is clear that Trunnion’s proper role is that of a fighter rather than a passive observer. Trunnion suffers exten sively as a result of his union with Grizzle Pickle, but on his deathbed he speaks to Peregrine concerning his wife as follows: There’s your aunt sitting whimpering by the fire; I desire you will keep her tight, warm, and easy in her old age; she’s an honest heart in her own way, and, thof she goes a little crank and humoursome, by being often overstowed with Nantz and religion, she has been a faithful shipmate to me, and I daresay never turned in with another man since we first embarked in the same bottom.37 Trunnion also attempts to "provide" for his soon-to-be widow by suggesting that his lieutenant, Jack Hatchway, ■ i marry her; Hatchway agrees, and Trunnion then gives his 3^Spector, Tobias Smollett, p. 63. ________37Works, ed. Maynadier, VI, 21. 110 final advice to Peregrine: As for that young woman, Ned Gauntlet’s daughter, I’m informed as how she’s an excellent wench, and has a respect for you; whereby, if you run her on board in an unlawful way, I leave my curse upon you, and trust you will never prosper in the voyage of life. But I believe you are more of an honest man, than to behave so much like a pirate. I beg of all love you wool take care of your constitution, and beware of running foul of har lots, who are no better than so many mermaids, that sit upon rocks in the sea, and hang out a fair face for the destruction of passengers; thof I must say, for my own part, I never met with any of those sweet singers, and yet I have gone to sea for the space of thirty years. But howsomever, steer your course clear of all such brimstone b— e s.*8 Clearly, Trunnion views "virtuous wedlock" as a positive good, and he also leaves Perry his entire fortune in order to provide the necessary financial security for him. Unfor tunately, however, neither Trunnion’s advice nor his legacy has the proper effect upon Perry: . . . jPeregrine) examined the will . . . adjusted the payment of all legacies, and, being sole executor, took an account of the estate to which he had succeeded, which, after all deductions, amounted to thirty thou sand pounds. The possession of such a fortune, of which he was absolute master, did not at all contribute to the humiliation of his spirit, but inspired him with new ideas of grandeur and magnificence, and elevated his hope to the highest pinnacle of expectation.39 We thus see that at this point in the novel (almost exactly half way through) Peregrine has all the requirements for the good life that were recommended in Roderick Random. He is a born gentleman, he has received an excellent educa tion, he has had extensive experience in the world, he has 3&Ibid.. VI, 22 39jbid.. VI, 25. Ill financial security, and he can live in rural retirement at the "garrison" and can achieve virtuous wedlock with Ned Gauntlet’s daughter, Emilia. However, as the opening episode in Peregrine Pickle has already clearly indicated, all this is not enough to insure the good life, and Peregrine, like his father and Hawser Trunnion, does not have the proper character and personality that would enable him to lead the good life. Peregrine’s failure to take Trunnion’s final advice and to join in "virtuous wedlock" with Emilia is a clear indication of this; as Rufus Putney phrases it: The relationship between Peregrine and Emilia is not, like that of Roderick and Narcissa, a mere romance, convenient because it provides a cheerful conclusion. Where the love story in Roderick Random had been a minor theme, apart from the real purpose of the book, that of Peregrine and Emilia is the core of the novel’s structure.40 Peregrine’s weaknesses in character and personality are apparent from the time of his very first appearance in the novel. Even as an infant, Peregrine delights in tor menting other people: It is reported of him, that, before the first year of his infancy was elapsed, he used very often, immediately after being dressed, in the midst of the caresses which were bestowed upon him by his mother, while she indulged herself in the contemplation of her own happiness, all of a sudden, to alarm her with a fit of shrieks and cries, which continued with great violence till he was stripped to the skin with the utmost expedition, by order of his affrighted parent, who thought his tender body was tortured by the misapplication of some unlucky 40»The Plan of Peregrine Pickle," p. 1054. 112 pin; and when he had given them all this disturbance and unnecessary trouble, he would lie sprawling and laughing in their faces, as if he ridiculed the imper tinence of their concern.41 As Peregrine grows older his attacks upon those who love him continue; the foibles and eccentricities of Commodore Trunnion and Grizzle Pickle provide plenty of material for his "satire," and eventually Peregrine’s own mother cannot stand even the sight of him. Whereas Roderick Random attacked other people only in self-defense, Peregrine . . . goes much further: he rigs practical jokes on people who have not even harmed him in order to reveal their foolishness or knavery. Like Roderick he has a ♦satirical disposition,* but in this novel such phrases are tied more closely to the plot. Before he is one year old his satiric bent is revealed. . . . What establishes his pranks as satires is their aim to punish the victim*s particular folly. The pranks Peregrine and Hatchway play on Commodore Trunnion are directed at his hatred of his kinsmen, his hatred of attorneys, and his belief in goblins (foibles enum erated by the innkeeper when we first meet Trunnion). But to a greater extent than in Roderick Random our attention is drawn to the punishment. When Peregrine punishes Trunnion for his pose of *Hannibal Tough* by stepping on his gouty toe, pain, not vice or folly, is revealed; and when Peregrine, having been gently caned, falls to the floor as if dead, Trunnion*s anguish only serves to reveal a gentle heart. The potion Perry satirically substitutes for Mrs. Trunnion’s spirits only serves to nearly kill the good woman. The effect of such emphases is to make Peregrine a most unlovable her0.42 It is true, of course, that Perry has a number of virtues to offset the qualities which make him "unlovable." ^ Works. ed. Maynadier, IV, GB-39. ^Ronald Paulson, Satire and the Novel in Eighteenth-Century England (Wew Haven; Yale University Press, I967J, p. 181. 113 His mother1s hatred of him is shown to be totally irrational and out of all proportion to anything he has actually done to her. At school he becomes a sort of ’ ’dictator” among his classmates: At length . . . he accomplished his aim; his adversaries were subdued, his prowess acknowledged, and he obtained the laurel in war as well as in wit. Thus triumphant, he was intoxicated with success. His pride rose in proportion to his power . . . he contracted a large proportion of insolence, which a series of misfortunes that happened to him in the sequel could scarce effectually tame. Nevertheless, there was a fund of good nature and generosity in his composition, and, though he established a tyranny among his comrades, the tranquillity of his reign was maintained by the love rather than by the fear of his subjects.43 This passage gives a perfect statement of the central issue in Peregrine Pickle and of Smollett*s recipe for the good life. Peregrine is a naturally superior person, but his pride and insolence must be tamed before he can become the leader of a benevolent dictatorship based upon generosity and love rather than fear. His early ”triumphs”— such as his success at school and later his inheritance of Trunnion*s fortune— -serve to increase his pride and inso lence rather than to reduce them; but he never completely loses his essential goodness and generosity, and in the course of his own personal development he manages to do much that is good by helping others and by attacking evil, folly, and corruption wherever he finds them. The immediate result of Perry’s triumph at school is that it enables him to 43Works. ed. Maynadier, IV, 97• Ilk attack successfully Mr. Keypstick, the schoolmaster, who is described as follows: Over and above a large stock of avarice, ignorance, and vanity, this superior had certain ridiculous peculiar ities in his person, such as a hunch upon his back, and distorted limbs, that seemed to attract the satirical notice of Peregrine, who, young as he was, took offence at his want of reverence for his usher, over whom he sometimes chose opportunities of displaying his authority, that the boys might not displace their veneration.44 The net result of Peregrine’s attack is that an incompetent and inhuman teacher is exposed, ridiculed, and eliminated— and a large number of children are spared a great deal of torture and despair. Peregrine’s later successes do not always have such a beneficial effect, although there is always some good mixed in with the bad. Ronald Paulson summarizes the pro gress of Perry’s satirical career as follows: Smollett shows Peregrine’s satiric inclination as, first, a sign of a superiority which leads him to set himself up as an impersonal nemesis. In the second stage, forced to defend himself . . . Peregrine justi fies his punishments . . . on the moral grounds of the satirist punishing vice. Then, when brought into con tact with the sophistication of high society and the continent, his satiric bent becomes a ruthless pride that preys upon the fools and simple souls around him for his amusement or worse.45 As has been already indicated, the moral low point of Perry’s career comes after he has inherited Trunnion’s for tune— and his relationship to Emilia is the crucial factor. 44Ibid.. IV, 9$ . 45satire and the Novel in Eighteenth-Century England, p. 182. 113 After Trunnion’s death, Peregrine does not waste any time in his attempt to become a "gentleman of fashion": . . . repairing to the great city, purchased a new chariot and horses, put Pipes and another lacquey into rich liveries, took elegant lodgings in Pall Mall, and made a most remarkable appearance among the people of fashion. It was owing to this equipage, and the gaiety of his personal deportment, that common fame, which is always a common liar, represented him as a young gentle man who had just succeeded to an estate of five thousand pounds per annum. . . . This report, false and ridiculous as it was, he could not find in his heart to contradict. Not but that he was sorry to find himself so misrepresented; but his vanity would not allow him to take any step that might diminish his importance in the opinion of those who courted his acquaintance. . . . In a word, vanity and pride were the ruling foibles of our adventurer. • . .46 Clearly, Trunnion’s fortune has had a bad effect upon Perry’s character. Although there is no longer any barrier to his marriage to Emilia, he no longer thinks of her in terms of marriage: He therefore laid down the . . . resolution of visiting her in all the splendour of his situation, in order to practice upon her virtue with all his art and address, to the upmost extent of his affluence and fortune. Nay, so effectually had his guilty passion absorbed his principles of honour, conscience, humanity, and regard for the Commodore’s last words, that he was base enough to rejoice at the absence of his friend Godfrey, who being then with his regiment in Ireland, could not dive into his purpose, or take measures for frustrating his vicious design.47 It is probably this "plan" of Peregrine’s that Edward Wagenknecht has in mind when he comments that ” . . . Perry’s promiscuous and disgusting sensuality is 4%orks. ed. Maynadier, VI, 2G-29 Ibid.. VI, 30. 116 unbearable. . . Clearly, however, the narrator does not approve of Perry’s behavior, and there has been a clear reason given for such behavior. Furthermore, Peregrine’s "plan" is an utter failure— Emilia responds to his direct proposition as follows: ’ . . . your utmost efforts have never been able to lull the vigilance of my conduct, or to engage my affection beyond the power of discarding you without a tear, when ever my honour should demand such a sacrifice. Sir, you are unworthy of my concern or regret, and the sigh that now struggles from my breast is the result of sorrow, for my own want of discernment. As for your present attempt upon my chastity, I despise your power, as I detest your intention. Though, under the mark of the most delicate respect, you have decoyed me from the immediate protection of my friends, and contrived other impious strategems to ruin my peace and reputation, I confide too much in my own innocence, and the authority of the law, to admit one thought of fear, much less to sink under the horror of this shocking situation, into which I have been seduced. Sir, your behavior on this occasion is, in all respects, low and contemptible. For, ruffian as you are, you durst not harbour the thought of executing your execrable scheme, while you knew my brother was near enough to prevent or revenge the insult; so that you must not only be a treacherous villain, but also a most dispicable coward.’ Having expressed herself in this manner, with a most majestic severity of aspect, she opened the door, and, walking downstairs with surprising resolution, committed her self to the care of a watchman, who accommodated her with a hackney-chair, in which she was safely conveyed to her uncle’s house.A9 Smollett shows clearly that a lady of real virtue is capable ^ • Cavalcade of the English Novel (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1943)# P» 76. As we have seen in Chapter I, there has been a great deal of unfair, inaccu rate, and just plain silly "criticism” of the l , moralityn developed in Smollett’s novels. Wagenknecht’s remark is perhaps the most assinine comment of all. ^ Works. ed. Maynadier, VI, 4S-49. 117 of resisting any "strategem;" as James R. Foster has commented: It is evident that Smollett had no high opinion of the • • • sentimental heroines who like those of Richardson . . . (had) so much difficulty in escaping from bagnios and other places where they were held prisoners. Snily’s spirited escape from the bagnio where Perry had taken her . • »nis Smollett’s comment on this helpless, swooning type.5° And we might add that— unlike Roderick’s "divine Narcissa"— Emilia gives a very clear and forceful idea here of what constitutes female honor and virtue. Since Emilia is ultimately to share the good life with Peregrine, it is clear that Smollett has done a better job of defining that good life in the sense that he has given a more interesting, complete, and convincing picture of how and why a woman qualifies for her share in the good life. We see Narcissa only through Roderick’s eyes, and all the descriptions of her and reports of her activities and remarks are given by Roderick himself. However, in the bagnio scene Perry is almost forgotten, as the narrator concentrates upon Emilia. In Emilia’s case as well as in Perry’s, character is more important than mere financial security in the attainment of the good life. Perry is the villain in the bagnio scene, and the narrator indicates very clearly his disapproval of Perry’s activities. The function of this scene in the overall 5°History of the Pre-Romantic Novel in England (New York: Modern Language Association, 1949), P« 121. 11$ structure of the novel is clearly to show that Perry has degenerated morally because his selfishness and pride have, as a result of Trunnion’s legacy, dominated the better parts of his character. The narrator reminds us that there is still a "better part" to Perry’s character by describing his reaction to Emilia’s departure in the following manner: The nature of his disappointment, and the keen remorse that seized him, when he reflected upon the dishonour able footing on which his character stood with Emilia, raised such perturbation in his mind, that his silence was succeeded by a violent fit of distraction, during which he raved like a bedlamite, and acted a thousand extravagancies, which convinced the people of the house, a certain bagnio, that he had actually lost his wits.?1 In short, Perry is literally driven to the brink of madness by his sense of shame, and for the next 25 pages in the novel he is shown to be in great danger of going totally insane. This fact helps to underscore the moral "madness" of his attempted seduction of Emilia. Smollett consistently equates moral weakness with "madness."52 Perry’s "mad" behavior physically weakens him to such an extent that he finally becomes ill and almost dies. 5%orks. ed. Maynadier, VI, 49* 52G. S. Rousseau had pointed out that the fact that Perry’s mother suffered from a "diseased imagination" (eventually leading to an insane conviction that Perry is not really her child) "... raises the medically valid fear that Peregrine may be born deformed." "Science and the Discovery of the Imagination in Enlightened England," Eighteenth-Century Studies. Ill (1969), 122. Rousseau might also have pointed out the fact that Perry’s younger brother, Gam, actually is "born deformed," and also the fact that the moral corruption of Ferdinand Fathom, the "hero" of Smollett’s third novel, is very definitely attributed to ^'hereditary" • influences.____________________________________ 119 Significantly, however, it is his pride and "resentment" that preserve his life and make it possible for him to bear his "disappointment." When Emilia’s mother informs Perry that, because of the attempted seduction, Emilia will not even consider his proposal of marriage, we are told that These motives of resentment helped him to bear his disappointment like a philosopher, especially as he had now quieted his conscience, in proferring to redress the injury he had done; and, moreover, found himself, with regard to his love, in a calm state of hope and resignation. A seasonable fit of illness is an excellent medicine for the turbulence of passion. Such a refor mation had the fever produced on the economy of his thoughts, that he moralised like an apostle, and pro jected several prudential schemes for his future conduct.53 Perry’s "moralizing" and "prudential schemes" lead nowhere, however; we are told that he finally . . . resumed his former gaiety— not that he was able to shake Emilia from his thought, or even to remember her without violent emotions; for, as he recovered his vigour, his former impatience recurred, and therefore he resolved to plunge himself headlong into some intrigue, that might engage his passions and amuse his imagination.54 In short, Perry returns to his old way of life as an adventurer and as a "satirist" who exposes, ridicules, and chastises the vices and follies of the "beau monde." Ronald Paulson considers Perry’3 return to his former way of life to be one of the weakest points in the novel: It is . . . questionable whether the themes of Pere grine’s satire and of his moral decline ever come together. For example, the episodic nature of the 53works. ed. Maynadier, VI, 71• 54ibid.. VI, 74. 120 novel destroys any real sense of Peregrine’s atonement for his behavior to Emilia. He says he regrets it, and then nearly a volume follows (other flirtations, the narrative of a Lady of Quality, and some satiric pranks) before he encounters Emilia again. We are given no indication that he has thought of her in the interval; and so the point is lost that his attempted seduction was an important event, for which he has to atone.55 Paulson’s remarks are to some extent valid. It is certainly true, as has been already stated, that the "Memoirs of a Lady of Quality” is a tedious digression which damages the structure of the novel. However, it is not true that Perry does not think of Emilia during the "interval,and Paulson’s emphasis upon the idea that Perry must "atone" for his treatment of Emilia is misleading. Actually, what Perry needs to do is to bring his "satirical" disposition under control and to develop a capacity for unselfish love. Paulson himself seems to recognize this fact when he states elsewhere that . . . Peregrine’s attempt on the virtue of Emilia appears as merely another example of the relationship he has set up between himself and the objects of his satiric contemplation. The remainder of the novel, then, is spent curing him of his folly. . . . he must be able to love his fellowmen— thus subordinating him self— before he can gain Emilia.57 With Peregrine’s return to his former way of life as 55«»Satire in the Early Novels of Smollett," p. 397. 5^See, for example, the account of Perry’s ideas and emotions immediately after the "Lady of Quality" concludes her "story." Works, ed. Maynadier, VI, 271-272. 57satire and the Novel in Eighteenth-Century England, pp. I&3-IS4. 121 an adventurer and "satirist," we come to the third major way in which Peregrine Pickle presents and examines the concept of the good life more effectively than does Roderick Random. The character Cadwallader Crabtree is introduced into the novel shortly before Perry’s attempt upon Emilia’s virtue. Crabtree describes his experiences and his outlook on life to Peregrine as follows: In short, I have travelled over the greatest part of Europe, as a beggar, pilgrim, priest, soldier, gamester, and quack; and felt the extremes of indigence and opulence, with the inclemency of weather in all its vicissitudes. I have learned that the characters of mankind are everywhere the same; that common sense and honesty bear an infinitely small proportion to folly and vice; and that life is at best a paltry province.58 Clearly, Crabtree is a misanthrope (both Perry and the narrator use the term), but he is an active one who devotes his energies to exposing, ridiculing, and chastising the vice and folly he sees: I now appear in the world, not as a member of any community, or what is called a social creature, but merely as a spectator, who entertains himself with the grimaces of a Jack-pudding, and banquets his spleen in beholding his enemies at loggerheads. That I may enjoy this disposition, abstracted from all interruption, danger, and participation, I feign myself deaf; an expedient by which I not only avoid all disputes and their consequences, but also become master of a thou sand little secrets, which are every day whispered in my presence, without any suspicion of their being over heard . . . JthusJ I practice upon the crazed Tory, the bigot Whig, the sour, supercilious pendant, the petulant critic, the blustering coward, the fawning tool, the pert imp, sly sharper, and every other species of co knaves and fools, witn which this kingdom abounds. 58tf0rks. ed. Maynadier, VI, 16. 59ibid., VI, 16-17. 122 As one critic has pointed out, "We can almost feel the author’s sigh of admiration as he writes of a satirist who can ferret out evil and castigate it to its face without endangering his own person or curbing his own satisfac tion.”^ Naturally, Peregrine also "admires” Crabtree and is most pleased when Crabtree suggests an "alliance" between them. Peregrine readily agrees— but Trunnion’s death and the attempt upon Etailia intervene. When Perry returns to his former way of life, however, the alliance is resumed. Perry and Crabtree are monumentally successful in their various "satirical" activities. Alan D. McKillop comments upon the function and significance of Crabtree as follows: In the later part of Pickle. Smollett makes considerable play with the Welshman Sir Cadwallader Crabtree. . . . He is the malcontent and misanthrope of post-1600 English Comedy, and the sequence in which he sets up as a necromancer and derides and gulls those who expose themselves by consulting him is thoroughly Jonsonian .... Smollett thus tries to dramatize the humorist as satirist, a plan to which he was.to return with greater success in Humphry Clinker. At first glance, it is difficult to understand what might be the basis for McKillop’s implication that the in troduction of Crabtree and his "alliance” with Peregrine is somehow "unsuccessful." Clearly, Crabtree represents a possible alternate form of the good life: he is a ^Paulson, Satire and the Novel in Eighteenth Century England, p. 1#3. 6^-The Early Masters of English Fiction (Lawrence, Kansas: University of Kansas Press, 1956), p. 161. 123 gentleman, he is well educated, he has had varied experience in the world, he appears to have financial security, and he dedicates his life to exposing, ridiculing, and chastising vice and folly— and, in the episode to which McKillop makes reference, he shows that he can be charitable; the money he and Peregrine acquire through their scheme is to be " . . . distributed to poor families in distress."^ Furthermore, the narrator obviously admires Crabtree and approves of the way in which he and Peregrine pursue their "satirical” activities* The fact that a certain "monotony" develops in the course of these "satirical" activities is the reason cited by McKil l o p ^ to support his contention that they are somehow "unsuccessful," but Ronald Paulson comes closer to the truth when he states that . . . Smollett ends with a rather searching inquiry into the nature of satire in relation to the individual who practices it. Peregrine and Crabtree are useful satirists (in the sense that their attacks are ’true*), but before they can be useful human beings as well, they have to be cured to their misanthropy. The dis tinction between man and satirist, private and public roles, runs through the rest of Smollett^ fiction, receiving its definitive treatment in his last novel, Humphry Clinker This, then, is the reason why the possible alternate form of the good life represented by Crabtree is unsatis factory. Smollett demonstrates that it is unsatisfactory ^2Works, ed. Maynadier, VII, 2S3. ^ Early Masters of English Fiction, p. 161. 64Satire and the Novel in Eighteenth-Century England, p. 186. _____ 124 by showing that— despite the success of their "satirical" activities— Peregrine is unable to content himself with them. He still has hopes of "advancing" in the world, and he manages to lose large sums of money in such pursuits as gambling and political campaigning. In other words, Smollett implies that there should be more to life than a career as a "satirist." As his own financial condition worsens, Peregrine begins to have serious doubts about the character and the motives of his colleague: . . . our young gentleman began to be disgusted, at certain intervals, with the character of this old man, whom he now thought a morose cynic, not so much insensed against the vices of mankind, as delighted with the distress of his fellow-creatures. Thus he put the most unfavorable construction on the principles of his friend, because he found himself justly fallen under the lash of his animadversion. In order to get even with Crabtree for his "animadversion," Perry concocts a scheme whereby he convinces Crabtree that his (Crabtree*s) source of income has dried up. Crabtree*s reaction to this news is as follows: Would I were a worm, that I might creep into the earth, and thatch my habitation with a single straw; or rather a wasp or a viper, that I might make the rascally world feel my resentment. But why do I talk of rascality? folly, folly, is the scourge of lifeJ Give me a scoundrel, so he be a sensible one, and I will put him in my heart of heartsi but a fool is more mischievous than famine, pestilence, and war. . . . Before God, I have a good mind to . . . purchase . . . (a halterj for myself, but that I would not furnish food ror laughter to knaves and coxcombs.66 ^ Works. ed. Maynadier, VII, 79-$0. 66Ibid., VII, BB-B9. 125 This passage certainly shows Crabtree at his very worst and indicates that beneath the pose of the satirist who punishes moral weakness in others there is a large fund of weakness on the part of Crabtree himself. Perry’s evaluation of Crabtree’s reaction is very revealing: ’These are the comfortable fruits of your misanthropy,’ answered the youth; ’your laudable scheme of detaching yourself from the bonds of society, and of moving in a superior sphere of your own. Had you not been so peculiarly sage, and intent upon laughing at mankind, you could never have been disconcerted by such a pitiful inconvenience; any friend would have accomodated you with the sum in question. But now the world may retort the laugh; for you stand upon such an agreeable footing with your acquaintance, that nothing could please them better than an account of your having given disappoint ment the slip, by the help of a noose properly applied.’67 As we have already seen, Peregrine’s own "misfor tunes" eventually cause him to react in almost exactly the same way. In prison he develops a "rancorous resentment against mankind," and we are told that . . . he impatiently longed for the hour of his own dissolution, which, if it should not soon arrive by the course of nature, he was resolved to hasten with his own hands, rather than be exposed to the contempt, and more intolerable pity of a rascally world. We thus see that the ultimate conclusion of a career as a "satirist" of the kind that Crabtree and Peregrine have been is despair; the implication is that such misanthropy is ultimately self-destructive and sterile. It is true that Peregrine does not remain in this miserable and despairing condition for very long. His 6?Ibid.. VII, 90-91. 6SIbid., VII, 284-285. 126 friend Godfrey, Emilia*s brother, attempts to help him. Tom Pipes, Jack Hatchway, and even Crabtree— with whom he has earlier been reconciled— remain loyal to him. His pride and sense of shame make him hesitant to accept their aid, but the return of an investment he had considered lost helps to ease his condition somewhat, and shortly thereafter he is informed that his father has died intestate and that he is entitled to a large fortune. Once in possession of that fortune he marries Emilia and, with his friends, retires to a quiet life in the country. Many critics have attacked this rapid and unrealis tic conclusion to the novel on the grounds that Perry does not deserve such good fortune. Frank ¥. Chandler, for example, says that Perry’s 1 1 . . . happiness . . . is achieved through no skill or merit of the anti-hero. ...” and that "Smollett . . . condoned the faults of Peregrine . . . ."69 Such a comment reflects a failure to understand Smollett’s purpose, an inability properly to appreciate the significance and function of the point of view, and a lack of understanding of how the structure of the novel (except for the two long digressions) helps to accomplish the pur pose. The purpose of the novel is clearly to show how Perry is prepared for just such a position in life as the one he achieves at the end. The structure of the novel is 69xhe Literature of Roguery. II, 313. 127 such that he moves logically and steadily toward that goal, and the comments of the narrator make it clear that Perry’s faults are not condoned. The conclusion of the novel is not "realistic,” since it is based upon such a large amount of luck and coincidence; but, as Ronald Paulson phrases it, .... Smollett recognized that satirizing is not the normal state of man and has to be explained . . . [he] requires Peregrine to be cured of his pride and mis anthropy . . . when there is no longer any need for the envy and dissatisfaction that brought them into being. The return of his money, the timely inheritance of his estate, the love of Emilia, and revenge on his old enemies free Peregrine from the need for misanthropy; under Emilia’s loving smile even Crabtree has become cheerful as the book ends.'0 It should also be added that Smollett makes clear that Peregrine— unlike his father and Hawser Trunnion— does possess the proper character and personality for living the good life by the time the novel ends. He has been cured of his "misanthropy" and his desire to "rise" in the world. When he gets possession of his father’s estate, we are told that He found himself immediately a man of vast consequence among his country neighbours, who visited him with compliments of congratulation, and treated him with such respect as would have effectually spoiled any young man of his disposition, who had not the same advantages of experience as he had already purchased at a very extravagant price.71 A "noble peer" then offers his daughter in marriage to 7°Satire and the Novel in Eighteenth-Century England, p. 187. 7-^Works. ed. Maynadier, VII, 316-317 • Peregrine, but "our hero expressed himself upon this occasion as became a man of honour, sensibility, and polite ness; and frankly gave his lordship to understand, that his heart was already engaged."72 This is, of course, a far different Peregrine from the one who, after Trunnion’s death, was determined to be accepted by the nobility and "beau monde" at almost any cost. On his way to London and a reunion with Emilia, Peregrine has an adventure which effectively demonstrates that he is no longer misanthropic and that he is no longer interested in "satirical" activities. Critics have been unanimously silent about the function and significance of this episode, but it does clearly illustrate the change in Perry’s outlook on life. On his way to London Perry meets a country squire who invites him and his party to stop and refresh themselves at his estate. Once inside the house, Perry is astonished to find that his host has a large collection of paintings of his ancestors and that these paintings have been mutilated by the addition of outlandish periwigs to the heads of each of the "ancestors." We are told that as a result the paintings "... exhibited such a ludicrous appearance, that Pickle’s wonder, in a little time, gave way to his mirth, and he was seized with a violent fit of laughter, which had well-nigh deprived him of 72Ibid.. VII, 317. 129 his breath."73 The host then gives a ridiculous explanation for the condition of the paintings. During his "satirical1 1 career, Perry would have immediately devised a "strategem" to humiliate and to "punish" such a ridiculous character. In this instance, however, we are told that Pickle commended his resolution, though in his heart, he blessed himself from such a barbarous Goth; and, after they had dispatched two or three bottles of his beer, they proceeded on their journey, and arrived in town about eleven at night.74 Finally, if we turn to the two unsatisfying points which were found concerning the conclusion of Roderick Random, we find that the conclusion of Peregrine Pickle is clearly more satisfying on at least one of those counts. Whereas in Roderick Random the evil in life is presented too convincingly and the good is not presented convincingly enough, in Peregrine Pickle both the evil and the good are convincingly portrayed. Perry himself is a more complex character than was Roderick, and by shifting to a study of character development rather than a history of a young man of fixed character, Smollett is able to show good and evil contending with each other in the heart and mind of a single character (the change in point of view, of course, facili tates this change in emphasis). Furthermore, in such characters as Hawser Trunnion and Cadwallader Crabtree Smollett shows other persons who are mixtures of good and 73lbid.. VII, 320. 74Ibid., VII, 320 130 evil, rather than one-sided "good guys" or "bad guys" such as were found in Random. It is true that Etailia is a paragon of virtue and goodness, but, unlike in the case of the "divine" Narcissa, we are given concrete evidence as to exactly why she is so good and virtuous— specific instances of how such goodness and virtue are revealed when she is confronted with temptation and evil. Concerning the second unsatisfying point, however, the improvement of Smollett’s second novel over his first is not nearly so complete. At the conclusion of Roderick Random there is no evidence that the world in general will ever improve, but evidence only that a relatively few indi viduals may be fortunate enough— through miraculous luck and coincidence— to withdraw from it and to establish islands of goodness and sanity within a basically evil and insane world. In Peregrine Pickle we find that a method for "improving" the world in general is presented— the "satiri cal" activities of Perry and Crabtree are designed to accomplish that purpose. This possible alternate form of the good life is rejected, however, on the grounds that people who engage in this activity are misanthropes and that their misanthropy (although temporarily beneficial in that it causes them to expose and chastise vice and folly) is likely to end in despair and self-destruction. To repeat Ronald Paulson’s phrase, the obvious conflict between "man and satirist, private and public roles" is not resolved in a 131 satisfactory manner. It is clear that Smollett approves of what Crabtree and Peregrine do during their "satirical" career, but it is also clear that he does not approve of the effect which their activities have upon them and that he does not finally recommend such a career as an alternate form of the good life. In the final analysis, our satis faction in seeing Peregrine develop into a really good man who achieves peace and contentment is tempered by our knowledge that the world in general has not improved. Thomas R. Preston states this as follows: The plot of the novels then moves .. . towards the triumph of reason and good sense, with happiness dis tributed to all. But the plot exists in severe opposition to the extreme satiric ethos created by the hero as satirist, which makes a comic-satiric union rather unconvincing.75 We may conclude, then, that the problem of "man and satirist, private and public roles" must be solved before a solution can be given for the larger problem of whether or not the world in general can ever be improved. Peregrine Pickle does not provide a satisfactory solution either for the first problem or for the second. Pickle is superior to Random in that it gives a more complete and satisfying picture of what constitutes the good life and of how this good life can be achieved, but it does not indicate how this good life can be extended to others or how those who lead 75The Good-Natured Misanthrope: A Study in the Satire and Sentiment of the Eighteenth Century (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Rice University, 1962J, pp. 115-116. 132 the good life can make their influence felt by those who do not or cannot lead such a life. In other words, Smollett*s first two novels fail to give a picture of the good life in action. In his third novel Smollett attempts to do pre cisely what he failed to do in both Random and Pickle— but, unfortunately, he does not succeed. The reason for this failure is, as we shall see, the fact that instead of dealing with the problem of "man and satirist, private and public roles" he turns to the larger problem of whether or not the world in general can ever be improved and, in effect, constructs an unconvincing argument in support of the proposition that evil cannot possibly triumph over good. Unlike Random and Pickle. Smollett’s third novel, Ferdinand Count Fathom, was not a popular success; it had "the poorest record of any of his novels"^ among readers and critics alike during Smollett’s own lifetime. Lewis M. Knapp has shown that Smollett suffered from a number of very difficult financial and personal problems immediately before and during the writing of Count Fathom. b u t Knapp attempts to account for the poor reception of this third novel by stating that Not only was Smollett the satirist and the humanitarian in Count Fathom: he was also the moralist, the dis penser of literary quotations, and . . . the poetic ^^Boege, Smollett’s Reputation as a Novelist, p. 15. ^ Tobias Smollett: Doctor of Men and Manners, pp. 151-15&1 133 forerunner of the romantic (Gothic) novel. But in spite of its varied moods, scenes, and characters, Count Fathom seems not to have been widely read in 1753. Just why this should have been so is not easily explained . • . • The chief reasons, however, for the small sale of Count Fathom were perhaps that its hero was too complete a monster and that this novel lacked the comic humor of Roderick Random and Peregrine Pickle.'8 Alan D. McKillop says much the same thing when he concludes that Smollett . . . is experimenting with new effects. Instead of the comedy of humors, personal and social satire, and journalistic use of the travel theme, we find Fathom’s international career connected with a series„of sensational romantic or melodramatic epi sode s. 79 Clearly, then, Smollett tries something new in Count Fathom — and the results are not at all satisfactory. As we have already observed, Smollett deliberately chooses a scoundrel for his "hero1 * in Count Fathom because his "purpose is to set him up as a beacon for the unexper ienced and unwary." This "beacon" will serve, Smollett tells us, to help people "avoid the manifold snares . . . of life" and will "terrify" people who might "hesitate on the brink of iniquity" to such an extent that they will want to refrain from evil ways when they see the "deplorable fate" of Count Fathom. All of this sounds fine in theory, but the novel itself does not actually do what Smollett says it will do. The "manifold snares" turn out to be no snares 7gIbid.. p. 158. 7^Early Masters of English Fiction, p. 165. 134 at all because Fathom never once gains anything but tempo rary success over any of his ’ 'good" would-be victims, and the ’ ’deplorable fate” he suffers is merely that he finally learns that Vice has not paid; virtue probably would have done. Any swindler to whom dishonesty has not brought success will turn to honesty if he thinks it will better his fortune; but this is a change of tactics, not of heart .... Smollett presented an unexplained conversion .... (which] is the ’deplorable fate’ which . . . &€1 in his preface hoped would scare away those hesitating on the ’brink of iniquity.’80 The only place in Count Fathom where Smollett actually does what he says in his preface that he will do is in the opening 24 pages. These pages provide an account of Fathom’s mother, a totally heartless and immoral woman who makes her living by visiting the scenes of military engage ments and killing and robbing wounded soldiers. We learn that this woman is not even sure who Fathom’s father is (thus he is literally as well as figuratively a bastard), and that she manages to ’ ’provide" for her offspring by saving the life of a wounded officer, Count Melvil, for purely selfish reasons. Finding the Count wounded on the battlefield, she . . . concluded, from his appearance, that he was some person of distinction in the service, and foresaw greater advantage to herself in attempting to preserve his life, than she could possibly reap from the execu tion of her first resolve. ’If,’ said she to herself, ’I can find means of conveying him to his tent alive, ^Alexander A. Parker, Literature and the Delinquent (Edinburgh: The University Press, 1967), pp. 129-130. 135 he cannot but in conscience acknowledge my humanity with some considerable recompense; and, should he chance to survive his wounds, I have everything to expect from his gratitude and power.*81 Her expectations concerning the Count prove to be justified; in gratitude he takes upon himself the care and education of young Fathom, and thus the mother can return to her very- profitable "profession.” Soon, however, she makes a fatal mistake; as she prepares to kill and rob another wounded officer, she is herself killed instantly by him when he fires "a brace of bullets in her brain."**2 This is clearly a case in which a heartless villain gets exactly what she deserves— but after this point in the novel there is no other such case. One critic describes what happens after this point as follows: As happens time and time again in Smollett*s works, the mood set at the beginning has not been sustained, the promise of the brilliant opening chapters has not been kept. Long before we have reached the novel’s denoue ment, the savage irony of the battlefield scenes (and there is nothing more scathing in all of Smollett) has been dissipated, and by the time we near the end all we are left with is a curious melange of incongruous fairy tale material and conventional Gothic claptrap, as embarrassing to the reader as one fondly hopes it must have been to the writer. This is indeed a very strong condemnation of Ferdinand Count ^Works, ed. Maynadier, VIII, 17. g2Ibid.. VIII, 24. ^Albrecht B. Strauss, ”0n Smollett’s Language: A Paragraph in Ferdinand Count Fathom.” in Style in Prose Fic tion: English"Institute Essays. 1953. ed. Harold C. Martin (New tork: Columbia University Press, 1959), p. 25. 136 Fathom and it is— unfortunately— all too valid. Ferdinand is shown to be an absolute monster from the very start: ... the sole study, or at least the chief aim of Ferdinand, was to make himself necessary and agreeable to those on whom his dependence was placed. His talent was in this particular suited to his inclination; he seemed to have inherited it from his motherfs womb; and, without all doubt, would have raised upon it a most admirable superstructure of fortune and applause, had not it been inseparably yoked with a most insidious principle of self-love, that grew up with him from the cradle, and left no room in his heart for the least particle of social virtue. This last, however, he knew so well how to counterfeit, by means of a large share of ductility and dissimulation, that, surely, he was calculated by nature to dupe even the most cautious, and gratify his appetites, by levying contributions on all mankind.8* * - Ferdinand is constantly compared to Renaldo, the Countfs son, who actually possesses the virtues that Ferdinand only appears or pretends to possess. Renaldo is viewed by almost everyone, however, as a prodigy of stupidity and inelegance while Ferdinand, ” ... who was in point of learning a mere dunce, became, even in his childhood, remarkable among the ladies for his genteel deportment and vivacity. . • ."^5 Thus Smollett emphasizes the inability of the world to recognize real merit and the tendency of most people— especially ladies— to accept surface appearances.^ This ^ •Works. ed. Maynadier, VIII, 29-30* ^ Ibid.. VIII, 2S-29. AfL °M. A. Goldberg contends that Count Fathom is, in fact, a "Study in Art and Nature" and that Smollettfs pur pose is to show how and why people are almost always 137 point is finally summarized as follows: They were certainly, in all respects, the reverse of each other. Renaldo, under a total defect of exterior cultivation, possessed a most excellent understanding, with every virtue that dignifies the human heart; while the other, beneath a most agreeable outside, with an inaptitude and aversion to letters, concealed an amazing fund of villany and ingratitude. Hitherto his (Ferinand’s) observation had been confined to a narrow sphere, and his reflections, though surprisingly just and acute, had not attained to that maturity which age and experience give; but now, his perceptions began to be more distinct, and extended to a thousand objects which had never before come under his cognisance. He had formerly imagined, but was now fully per suaded, that the sons of men preyed upon one another, and such was the end and condition of their being.°7 In light of the narrator’s comment that Ferdinand was "calculated by nature to dupe even the most cautious," the reader is led to believe that he will be successful in putting his Hobbesian theory into action and will, indeed, make a career of "levying contributions on all mankind." When Ferdinand succeeds in corrupting Teresa, a servant girl in Count Melvil’s household, it appears at first glance as if his career really will be successful. On closer examina tion, however, it is clear that this first "triumph" does not really forecast a successful career. Ferdinand does not originally plan to corrupt Teresa. He actually wants to make a conquest of Miss deceived by the "artificial" in life and are blind to all that is "natural." Goldberg greatly overstates his case, but he does base his argument upon a basically sound premise. See Smollett and the Scottish School (Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1959), ch. IV. ^?Works, ed. Maynadier, VIII, 66-67. 13d Melvil, the Count’s daughter. However, when 1 1 . .. he displayed his qualifications in order to entrap the heart of his young mistress, he . . . unwittingly enslaved the affections of her maid."00 We are informed that Teresa " . . . had in good sooth long sighed in secret, under the powerful influence of his charms, and practised upon him all those little arts, by which a woman strives to attract the admiration, and ensnare the heart of a man she loves . . . ."^9 When Ferdinand finally recognizes the fact that Teresa is in love with him, we are told that he " . . . tasked his reflection and foresight, in order to discover how best he might convert this conquest to his own advan tage. "9® Before she will submit sexually to Ferdinand, however, Teresa demands that they exchange vows of "eternal love" and "fidelity"— a sort of secular "marriage." Ferdinand readily agrees, and we are told that The scruples of Teresa being thus removed, she admitted Ferdinand to the privileges of a husband, which he enjoyed in stolen interviews, and readily undertook to exert her whole power in promoting his suit with her young mistress, because she now considered his interests as inseparably connected with her own. Surely nothing could be more absurd or preposterous than the articles of this covenant, which she insisted upon with such inflexibility. How could she suppose that her pretended ^^Ibid.. VIII, 42. The word choice in this passage is most significant; it is necessary to entrap the heart of a "good" woman, but with a "bad" woman it is possible to enslave the affections. One does not speak of a sacred chalice in the same manner in which one may speak of a beer can. g9ibid.. VIII, 42. 90Ibid., VIII, 43. 139 lover would be restrained by an oath, when the very occasion of incurring it was an intention to act in violation of all laws human and divine? and yet such ridiculous conjuration is commonly the cement of every conspiracy, how dark, how treacherous, how impious soever it may be: a certain sign that there are some remains of religion left in the human mind, even after every moral sentiment hath abandoned it; and that the most execrable ruffian finds means to quiet the sugges tions of his conscience, by some reversionary hope of Heaven’s forgiveness.91 Thus the emphasis is upon Teresa’s weakness rather than Ferdinand’s skill— and Ferdinand has no success whatso ever with Miss Melvil. After unsuccessfully trying almost every imaginable device, the two confederates finally resort to drugs; we are told that Ferdinand . . . found means to furnish his associate with some mischievous preparations, which were mingled in her (Mss Melvil’£} chocolate, tea, or coffee, as provocations to warm her constitution; yet all these machinations, ingenious as they were, failed, not only in fulfilling their aim, but even in shaking the founda tions of her virtue or pride, which stood their assaults unmoved, like a strong tower built upon a rock, impregnable to all the tempestuous blasts of heaven.92 This same pattern is repeated throughout the novel as far as Ferdinand’s sexual "conquests" are concerned. Any woman with whom he succeeds richly deserves her fate, and he is never successful with a really "good" woman. Much later in his career— in England— he is attracted to a young girl named Celinda, but in her case he must resort to an elaborate "strategem" because she is not at first attracted to him. Ronald Paulson gives the following evaluation of 91lbid.. VIII, 4$. 92ibid.. VIII, 55 140 bhe Celinda episode: In his preface to • • • Count Fathom . . . Smollett says that Fathom is himself the evil that is being exposed; but running just below the novel’s surface is a recog nition of (or an unwillingness to pass up) the connection between the satirist and the criminal: both exploit and punish the folly of mankind. Take for example the seduction of Celinda. . . . it is problem atic whether the satire is more on Fathom’s viciousness or on Celinda*s folly. In his commentary on the epi sode, Smollett shifts his authorial emphasis from the victim’s gullibility to Fathom’s evil. But one wonders whether by pointing out that Celinda thereafter ’grew every day more sensual and degenerate,* ending in a life on the streets, Smollett is not presenting both the evil example of Fathom and the punishment Celinda deserves for her romantic illusions.93 In his non-sexual adventures Fathom is even less successful than he is with women. Whereas he is usually able at least to gain temporary sexual satisfaction among "bad” or "weak" women, among "bad” men he is often the victim rather than the conqueror. In Paris, for example, he engages in an epic dice game with an English ”squire,” Sir Stentor Stile, who at first appears to justify Fathom’s opinion ” ... that the English were dupes to all the world; and that, in point of genius and address, they were no more than noisy braggadochios."^ It turns out, however, that Sir Stentor is an accomplished trickster and fraud— and it is Fathom who is thoroughly fleeced. One episode like this follows another, and it is usually Ferdinand who 93satire and the Novel in Eighteenth-Century England. pp. 187-13#. 9%orks. ed. Maynadier, VIII, IS4. 141 is duped rather than his intended "victim*” The effect of all of this has been well described by A. R. Humphreys: Ferdinand*s escapades involve us in varied slices of European history and remind us that the eighteenth century was . . . a great age of tricksters. The action moves briskly from one gulling to another; its inventiveness is extensive and some of its scenes are not unexciting. . . . there is a succession of places and persons, of jargons, fashions, fancies, and trick eries of all sorts, kept perpetually on the brawl. One may well lose interest in Ferdinand*s adventures, but the detailed exploration of social life, giving the mid-century*s physical actuality . . . can still offer some vivid pages, even if it makes anything but a good novel.95 Humphreys is right in his implication that Fathom*s career as a scoundrel among scoundrels is the most vivid and interesting part of the novel. Once the "good" characters begin to reappear, the novel quickly degenerates into a very romantic and sentimental fairy-tale. Ferdinand*s career reaches its logical conclusion jwhen he winds up in an English prison. At this point Count Melvil*s son, Renaldo, miraculously re-appears and comes to his rescue. We learn that Renaldo has under his protection a beautiful young lady, the "divine" Monimia, whom he plans to marry as soon as he can take possession of his father*s estate. Predictably, Fathom turns on his benefactor and causes a breech between the lovers so that he can have the "divine" Monimia all to himself. A "virtuous and noble" 95»Fielding and Smollett," in From Drvden to Johnson, vol. IV of the Pelican Guide to English Literature, ed. Boris Ford (Baltimore! Penguin Books, 1965), p. 328. 142 Hebrew,96 Joshua, provides the money for Renaldo to return to Europe in search of his rightful inheritance, and the "helpless” Monimia is thus left at the mercy of Fathom. As in the case of Renaldo*s sister, however, Fathom1s "strate- gems" fail, and he finally resorts to force. Like Peregrine Pickle*s Emilia, Monimia shows great spirit and courage.; she seizes Fathom*s sword and threatens to kill him unless he leaves her immediately. Fathom reacts to this as follows: He was not so much affected by his bodily danger, as awestruck at the manner of her address, and the appearance of her aspect, which seemed to shine with something supernatural, and actually disordered his whole faculties, insomuch that he retreated without attempting to make the least reply; and she, having secured the door after his departure, sat down to ponder upon this shocking event.97 Even though she escapes the immediate danger of Fathom*s attack, Monimia is still in a very desperate situation. Renaldo is gone, she has very little money, and, unlike Peregrine’s Emilia, she has no friends to help and protect her. Smollett is determined, however, to show that virtue will find help and protection no matter how desperate the situation. Monimia goes to a church to pray, and there she meets Madame Clement, a wealthy widow who immediately offers to assist her. The moral of all this would seem to 96Robert D. Spector observes that "In the character of Joshua, the beneficent Jew who aids Renaldo, Smollett propagandizes for the Jewish Naturalization Act. . . ." Tobias Smollett, p. 100. , 97works. ed. Maynadier, IX, 99. 143 be that Providence will always provide a "virtuous and noble” Hebrew or a rich, compassionate widow to see to it that "good" people are protected. Smollett tricks the reader into believing that Monimia has died in Madame Clements house, and this sets the stage for a midnight scene at Monimia’s "tomb" when Renaldo is confronted by the "phantom” of his "departed" sweetheart. At this point it is perhaps appropriate to point out how one critic attempts to defend the plot of this novel: Whatever the weaknesses of the plot— and it is, after all, no more farfetched than those of many successful eighteenth-century novels, including Smollett’s own— it stands consistent with Smollett’s announced aims in the preface. . . . The large, sprawling satire is designed to give as vast a picture of corrupt manners and morals as is possible within the framework of the novel.9° The point that there are plenty of other eighteenth-century novels with "farfetched" plots, and the comment that the "sprawling satire" gives as "vast a picture of corrupt manners and morals as is possible" are valid, but it is not true that the plot "stands consistent with Smollett’s announced aims in the preface." The final impression given by the plot of Ferdinand Count Fathom is that evil is always unprofitable, that it cannot possibly succeed over good, and that Heaven itself will come to the rescue of virtue in dis tress. And, finally, Ferdinand’s ultimate "conversion" suggests that it is always possible to change from evil to 9#Spector, Tobias Smollett, p. 91. 144 good when one finally realizes all of this. Like Richard son’s Lovelace, Fathom is forgiven by those he has "wronged” the most— but it turns out that he has not really wronged them at all, and no Colonel Morden appears to render final justice. After Monimia*s "death," Fathom resumes his career as a trickster and fraud. Before long he is back in prison — this time on much more serious charges than before. One assumes that because the charges are so serious he is finally forced to reflect upon his career as follows: Such a concurrence of sinister events made a deep impression upon the mind of our adventurer. All his fortitude was insufficient to bear him up against this torrent of misfortunes; his resources were all dried up, his invention failed, and his reflection began to take a new turn. *To what purpose,* said he to himself, *have I deserted the paths of integrity and truth, and exhausted a fruitful imagination, in contriving schemes to betray my fellow-creatures, if, instead of acquiring a splendid fortune, which was my aim, I have suffered such a series of mortifications, and at last brought myself to the brink of inevitable destruction? By a virtuous exertion of those talents I inherit from nature and education, I might, long before this time, have rendered myself independent, and, perhaps, con spicuous in life.*99 As pointed out earlier, the gist of all this is the idea that "Vice has not paid; virtue probably would have done." After these "reflections" on the part of Ferdinand, the scene shifts to Renaldo and his adventures on the Continent; Renaldo is actually the central character in the last ten chapters of the novel. The reader is treated to an 99works. ed. Maynadier, IX, 171 145 account of how Renaldo rescues his mother and sister from an evil man who holds them prisoner, and then claims his father’s estate. He returns to‘ England, is reunited with Monimia, and again rescues Fathom from his ' ’deplorable" situation. We are informed that Renaldo and Monimia actually get great pleasure from rescuing Ferdinand, and their principal concern seems to be the fear that he will die before they can help him: .. . [Monimi^ observed, that the crimes of the delinquent were obliterated by his sorrow, misery, and repentence. Renaldo honestly owned, that, exclusive of other reasons, he could not deny himself the luxurious enjoyment of communicating happiness to his fellow- creatures in distress; and each fervently prayed, that their charity might not be disappointed by the death of the object.101 They are not "disappointed," however, and the novel closes with a picture of the "sincerely penitent" Ferdinand as he heads for rural retirement in northern England: Having thus obeyed the dictates of his duty and inclin ation, he next morning embarked in the stagecoach . . . and in six days arrived at the place of his retreat, which he found extremely well adapted to the circum stances of his mind and fortune. For all his vice and ambition was now quite mortified within him, and his whole attention engrossed in atoning for his former crimes, by a sober and penitent life, by which alone he could deserve the uncommon generosity of his patrons.1°2 lOOconcerning his mother, Renaldo is told that the villain has "... confined her to the west tower of your father’s house, where she is said to be kept close prisoner . . . " (with a dragon to guard her, no doubt, one is tempted to add), and Miss Melvil has been "... actually shut up in some convent in Vienna. . . ." Ibid.. IX, l&L. 101Ibid.. IX, 310. 102Ibid.. IX, 321 146 This is the "deplorable fate" of Fathom that Smollett promised in his preface. We may conclude, then, that Ferdinand Count Fathom is Smollett*s weakest novel, and that it is specifically his failure to solve the problem of "man and satirist, private and public roles" raised in Peregrine Pickle that accounts for that weakness. Eight years were to pass before Smollett published another novel and, as we shall see, his next effort was much more successful. CHAPTER IV THE GOOD LIFE IN ACTION; PART I: SIR LAUNCELOT GREAVES The eight years which elapsed betweer the publica tion of Smollett’s third novel, Ferdinand Count Fathom (1753)* and the completion^- of his fourth, Sir Launcelot Greaves (1761), were not years in which Smollett was idle; in fact, they were probably the most active and productive years of his life. During this period Smollett labored mightily as a journalist, translator, critic, essayist, 2 historian, and compiler, and, as Herbert Read has observed, to ignore the effect of all this activity upon Smollett’s later fiction would be as foolish as if ” • • . we were to ignore in Milton’s case the twenty years that elapsed between Lycidas and Paradise Lost.”3 Fortunately, however, 3-Sir Launcelot Greaves was published as a monthly serial in the Rritish Magazine. January, 1760, to December, 1761. Lewis M. Knapp observes that Greaves was ” ... the first considerable English novel ever to be published seri ally.” Tobias Smollett: Doctor of Men and Manners (New York: Russell and Russell, 1963), p. 223. See also Robert D. Mayo, The English Novel in the Magazines. 1740-1815 (Evanston, 111.: Northwestern University Press, 1962), pp. 276-286. ^The best account of these years of multifarious labor is that of Knapp, Tobias Smollett: Doctor of Men and Manners, pp. 151-247. 3Collected Essays in Literary Criticism (London: Faber and Faber, 1938), p. 237. _____________________________ 14.7___________________________ 143 the effect of all this activity has not been ignored; Louis L. Martz describes the significance of the period between Fathom and Greaves as follows: Apparently Smollett himself felt that his inspiration had flagged, since seven years elapsed before the publication of his fourth novel, Sir Launcelot Greaves .... {xt0 is worthy of careful reading, not only for its frequent amusing incidents, but also because it contains many elements essential to an understanding of Smollett’s development as a novelist. It is a transi tional novel: in date it comes almost in the middle of the gap (1753-66) between what may be called Smollett’s earlier and later creative periods. It is a strange amalgam of echoes from Smollett’s earlier period and hints of his later interests.4 - Martz then describes these "later interests"— and the reasons for them— as follows: The explanation of this shift of interests in Smollett’s later period . . . lies . . . in his preoccupation with . . . new materials during his ’fallow’ years. The political quarrels incidental to the Critical Review and the overt political propaganda of the Briton help to account for much of Smollett’s increased interest in political affairs. . . . But the dominant cause of his change in focus lies • . . in his immense compilations of history. Year after year he had compiled or edited the stubborn facts of history, taken from annals of England, Sweden, Germany, Holland, and other countries— from travel-books relating to practically every country in the known world. Sheet upon sheet the histories rolled from the press . . . to say nothing of histories reviewed for the Critical. . . . After Smollett’s saturation in historical details, a shift of interests was inevitable.5 Even in the area of prose style, Martz observes, the labors of Smollett’s "fallow" years had a salubrious effect: ^The Later Career of Tobias Smollett (New Haven: Yale University"tress, 1942), pp. 13-14* 5Ibid.. pp. 15-16. 149 With this change in interests came a change in style, already apparent in Sir Launcelot Greaves. There is a change from elaboration to simplicity,from expansive ness to succinctness, from trugidity to precision. Here again . . . the cause is obvious. During the gruelling labor of these years Smollett had probably edited more copy and compiled more history per hour than any other man of his day; and by this constant practice in setting down facts with order and clarity, Smollett’s manner of expression was hammered down to the sharpness of a die.o Martz presents a most impressive account of how and why Smollett’s "interests" and style changed during his "fallow" period, and his analysis of the effects these changes had upon Smollett’s fourth novel (and more espe cially upon his fifth, Humphry Clinker) is both accurate and convincing. Unfortunately, however, Martz’s judgment con cerning the intrinsic merits of Sir Launcelot Greaves is purely subjective and is neither convincing nor accurate. He baldly asserts that Greaves ” ... is the worst of Smollett’s novels. . • .," attributes this to what he calls the "... unfortunate imitation of Cervantes. . • .," and concludes that "Smollett must have been desperately in need of a model, to choose the Quixotic idea. . . ."7 Martz then points out a number of ways in which Greaves "merely" handles in a new and different manner themes and character types which have appeared in Smollett’s previous novels. Of course, since the whole point of Martz’s analysis of Smollett’s "fallow" period is the idea that Smollett learned 6Ibid.. p. 16. 7Ibid.. p. 14. 150 to improve his handling of these themes and character types, one wonders exactly what Martz’s objection to Greaves really is. Furthermore, there is some evidence that Martz*s memory concerning the plot of Greaves is not so accurate as it might be; he says that ” ... the scene with the fortune teller, Dr. Grubble, is an echo of Peregrine’s collusion with Cadwallader Crabtree. . . ."^ No such "scene” with "Dr. Grubble" occurs in the novel; when Captain Crowe and Timothy Crabshaw go to visit the "Doctor," we are told that They found the house forsaken, and had already reached the end of the lane in their return, when they were accosted by an old woman, who gave them to understand, that if they had occasion for the advice of a fortune teller, as she did suppose they had, from their stopping at the house where Dr. Grubble lived, she would conduct them to a person of much more eminence in that pro fession; at the same time she informed them, that the same Grubble had been lately sent to Bridewell; a circumstance which, with all his art, he had not been able to foresee." The character Dr. Grubble never even appears in the novel; it is Ferret, the misanthrope, who serves as the "fortune teller" and the function of the "fortune-telling" episode in Greaves is to provide additional evidence of Ferret’s skill as an impostor rather than, as in Peregrine Pickle, to reveal the corruption and moral decay of the "beau monde." Martz’s assertions concerning the "weaknesses" of ^Ibid., p. 14. 9The Works of Tobias Smollett, ed. G. H. Maynadier (12 vols.; toew York: The Athenaeum Society, 1902), X, 294. 151 Sir Launcelot Greaves are fairly typical; A. R. Humphreys points out that among critics ” ... there have been few to praise and very few to love it,"10 an(i Robert D. Spector comments that even among those who have expressed some ’ ’love” or ’ ’praise” the emphasis has usually been upon matters other than the intrinsic merits of the novel: What small interest has been expressed in Smollett’s . . . Sir Launcelot Greaves has had little to do with its merits as a novel, the work being primarily note worthy as the first example of serialization by a major novelist. It is also cited as one of the many imitations of Cervantes’ Don Quixote in the eighteenth century. Instead of taking it seriously as a work of art, most critics have been more concerned with its relation to Smollett’s biography. . . . Smollett’s political attitudes, regard for penal reform, and medical theories have gained the attention that critics have declined to waste on the novelist’s art. Only in such matters as the transition from Smollett’s earlier style or his capitulation to the fashions in Gothicisra and sentiment has critical comment customarily dealt with Greaves as a literary work.H Actually, Sir Launcelot Greaves is a much better novel than most critics have been willing to admit (or able to recognize). If we examine the two major charges usually made against the novel (as Martz says, the ’ ’unfortunate imitation” of Don Quixote and the use of themes and charac ter types already used in previous works), we find that the first of them is untrue and that the second is a positive 10»»Fielding and Smollett" in From Drvden to Johnson. vol. IV of the Pelican Guide to English Literature, ed. Boris Ford (Baltimore: Penguin Books, I965), pp. 328-329. U Tobias Smollett (New York: Twayne Publishing Company, 1968), p. 107. 152 virtue rather than a "weakness." More importantly, we find that Smollett does a much better job of presenting and examining the concept of the good life in Greaves than he has done in any of his previous novels. Smollett deals specifically in Greaves with what we have identified as the unsatisfying points concerning that concept in his first three novels, and this time he leaves the reader much better satisfied. And, finally, Sir Launcelot Greaves is a well- constructed and entertaining novel; it possesses a certain charm which is delightful in itself, and which is absolutely astonishing in a work produced by the "crabbed Smelfungus." First of all, there is the matter of the "unfor tunate imitation" of Don Quixote. Like Martz, George M. Kahrl views this as the "weakest" aspect of the novel: Whether Sir Launcelot Greaves is better conceived and executed than Ferdinand Count Fathom may be questioned. The great fault of the novel is Smollett’s unimagina tive and almost slavish imitation of Don Quixote in the character of Sir Launcelot. Smollett fails to translate the knight into terms of English life or an English squire; he carries over ineptly all the anachronisms of knight-errantry— the armor, vigils, combats, and the like, which are well motivated and appropriate in sixteenth-century Spain but not in eighteenth-century England. But once the original blunder of adhering too closely to Cervantes is accepted or discounted— a blunder for which Smollett attempted a rather lame excuse— there remains much that is excellent in the novel. More extensively and with happier results than 3 - n Fathom. Smollett has caught some of Fielding*s detached point of view, his leisurely rich style, and his fondness for burlesque. Best of all are the many scenes of rural English life for which both Fielding and Smollett are famous. • . .12 l^Tobias Smollett. Traveller-Novelist (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1945), p. 59. 153 It can be shown that the character of Sir Launcelot is not an "almost slavish imitation of Don Quixote" and that the "lame excuse" is not so "lame" after all. A very plausible explanation for Sir Launcelotfs behavior is offered (the disappointment resulting from the loss of his sweetheart, Aurelia Darnel), and Smollett’s purpose in making his hero a "knight-errant" is clearly to " . . . allow Smollett to question what truly constitutes sanity within this corrupt world."-13 It is the misanthrope, Ferret, who voices the principal objection to Sir Launcelot’s knight-errantry: ’WhatI’ said Ferret, ’you set up for a modern Don Quixote? The scheme is rather too stale and extrava gant. What was a humorous romance and well-timed satire in Spain near two hundred years ago, will make but a sorry jest, and appear equally insipid and absurd when really acted from affectation, at this time of day, in a country like England.’^4 We thus see that Smollett himself, through Ferret, voices a criticism of Sir Launcelot’s "scheme" which sounds suspi ciously like the comment made by Kahrl in his criticism of the novel. Furthermore, when Sir Launcelot offers his "lame excuse" in reply to Ferret’s criticism of his "scheme," it is the key phrase "acted from affectation" which he seizes upon first: The knight, eyeing this censor with a look of disdain, replied, in a solemn, lofty tone: ’He that from affec tation imitates the extravagancies recorded of Don Quixote, is an impostor equally wicked and contemptible. l3Spector, Tobias Smollett, p. 111. 14works. ed. Maynadier, X, IS. 154 He that counterfeits madness, unless he dissembles, like the elder Brutus, for some virtuous purpose, not only debases his own soul, but acts as a traitor to Heaven; by denying the divinity that is within him. I as neither an affected imitator of Don Quixote, nor, as I trust in Heaven, visited by that spirit of lunacy so admirably displayed in the fictitious character exhibited by the inimitable Cervantes.*15 Once he has replied to the charge of "affectation," Sir Launcelot defends himself from the charge of "lunacy" as follows: *1 have not yet encountered a windmill for a giant, nor mistaken this public-house for a magnificent castle .... I see and distinguish objects as they are discerned and described by other men. I reason without prejudice, can endure contradiction, and, as the com pany perceives, even bear impertinent censure without passion or resentment. I quarrel with none but the foes of virtue and decorum, against whom I have declared perpetual war, and them I will everywhere attack as the natural enemies of m a n k i n d . *-*-6 Throughout the novel, it is not Sir Launcelot who is "insane"; the only "insane" thing about him is his attempt to bring truth to light, to establish justice, to punish vice, and to aid those who are weak, helpless, and down trodden. Ronald Paulson comments upon Sir Launcelot*s "insanity" as follows: Sir Launcelot is forced to revert to an older, nobler code by the sorrow he feels at losing his beloved Aurelia and the outrage he feels at her guardian’s conduct; all combine to unhinge his mind and turn him into a foe of all injustice. Unlike Quixote, he is not allowed to be mocked, however eccentric his appear ance and actions; for that there is his Sancho Panza, Crabshaw. . . . When Sir Launcelot finds himself among the unregenerate, he simply lays about him with his lance and disperses them. . . . In short, he 15Ibid.. X, 18-19. 16Ibid., X, 19. 155 thinks of himself as God,s right hand, and with madness as a mask Smollett can accept him as such without having to postulate a set of psychological traits like Peregrinefs to explain him. At the end, when order has been restored and Aurelia is safe, Greaves returns to his normal pursuits.1? Clearly, then, Sir Launcelot*s knight-errantry, his "insanity,” is not part of a "slavish imitation" of Don Quixote but is instead a further development of a major theme and a major character type which are present in each of Smollett’s first three novels. Furthermore, the use of a character such as Sir Launcelot as the protagonist allows Smollett to give— for the first time— a satisfying solution to one of the major problems left unsolved in Random. Pickle, and Fathom: Sir Launcelot Greaves shows clearly jthat the world in general can be improved. The "mad" jexploits of Greaves himself bring about much improvement, but ultimately it is the "restoration" of his "sanity," the invocation of the law of the land, and a return by Greaves to his proper role as country gentleman that provide promise and hope for the future. Again, Ronald Paulson’s evaluation is significant: From the radical metaphor of this novel it appears that satire to Smollett is a vocation or a quest, and for. eighteenth-century Englishmen like Greaves it must be a throwback of some sort to an earlier, simpler, or more sensible world. It is not an entirely admirable occupation, and even Greaves learns that recourse to law is the only answer. And so the pattern established in Peregrine Pickle is followed in the subsequent ^ Satire and the Novel in Eighteenth-Century England (New Haven! Yale University Press, I967J, pp. 189-196. 156 novels, although the satirists themselves represent different areas of exploration and experiment. They have in common a dislocation of some sort— whether a criminal mind like Fathom’s or a sort of madness like Greaves1, and they use these infirmities (Fathom uncon sciously, Greaves consciously) to reveal the hidden corruption around them; finally, in one way or another, they are returned to a normal equilibrium when the satiric role is no longer required.1® Another major theme— misanthropy— and another major character type— the misanthropic "satirist"— are also treated much more successfully in Greaves than they have been in any of Smollett’s previous novels. The problem of "man and satirist, private and public roles" which is left unsolved at the conclusion of Peregrine Pickle comes much closer to being solved in Greaves, although a final solution to the problem is not given until Smollett’s final novel, Humphry Clinker. The character Ferret^-9 is the misanthrope in Sir Launcelot Greaves, just as Cadwallader Crabtree was in Peregrine Pickle, and, like Crabtree, Ferret is often an accurate observer who can see and "ferret" out evil and injustice. He is also, however, a very partisan Tory who lgIbid., p. 190. •^There is evidence that Smollett may have modeled some aspects of Ferret’s character and personality upon those of an actual person, "Dr." John Shebbeare, a man who enjoyed a varied career as a medical quack, political hireling, Grub-Street journalist, and all-around hack author. Shebbeare may also have been associated with Lady Vane in the preparation of the "Memoirs of a Lady of Quality" which appeared in Peregrine Pickle. For an excel lent account of Shebbeare and his various relationships to Smollett see James R. Foster, "Smollett’s Pamphleteering Foe Shebbeare," PMLA, LVII (1942), 1053-1100. 157 translates all he sees into purely political terms and slants his arguments in such a manner as to make it appear that all instances of evil, injustice, and corruption are brought about by Hanoverian kings and Whig ministers. Ferret is not as sympathetic a character as was Crabtree, and in Sir Launcelot himself Smollett provides an effective antidote to Ferret’s cynicism and misanthropy. Whereas Peregrine Pickle was strongly attracted to Crabtree and joined with him in various "satirical" activities, Sir Launcelot*s opinion of Ferret is very unfavorable. Although Sir Launcelot himself is a Tory, he considers men like Ferret to be "domestic traitors" and gives his opinion of Ferret in very forceful terms: ’Such domestic traitors are doubly the objects of detestation;— first, in perverting truth; and, secondly, in propagating falsehood, to the prejudice of that community of which they have professed themselves members. One of these is well known by the name of Ferret, an old, rancorous, incorrigible instrument of sedition. Happy it is for him that he has never fallen in my way; for, notwithstanding the maxims of for bearance which I have adopted, the indignation which the character of that caitiff inspires, would probably impel me to some act of violence, and I should crush him like an ungrateful viper, that gnawed the bosom which warmed it into life.*20 Sir Launcelot feels this way in spite of the fact that he can usually see a certain amount of truth in Ferret’s attacks upon the government. After one of Ferret’s partic ularly violent and bitter diatribes against the King, the 2%orks, ed. Maynadier, X, 24. 158 administration, and the English people in general, Smollett describes Sir Launcelot*s reaction as a mixture of admira tion and horror because Ferret " • • • had mixed some 0*1 melancholy truths with his scurrility." Another indication that Smollett does not approve of Ferret’s misanthropy is the fact that he pictures him as a very selfish person and a physical coward. Ferret exposes vice and corruption only for his personal amusement and gratification— and he is unwilling to take any personal risks in order to chastise such vice and corruption. When several characters organize a plot to expose the super stition and foolishness of Captain Crowe, we are informed that "Ferret, who perhaps would not have gone ten paces out of his way to save Crowe from the gallows, nevertheless engaged as an auxiliary, merely in hope of seeing a fellow- creature miserable."22 Still later, when it is revealed that Ferret has acted in an immoral, illegal, and dishonest manner, we learn that in addition to his misanthropy Ferret subscribes to a Hobbesian philosophy2^ very much like that of Ferdinand Fathom; when Sir Launcelot confronts him with 21Ibid.. X, 131. 22Ibid.. X, $4. 23m . A. Goldberg views Sir Launcelot Greaves as "A Study in Social- and Self-Love," contending that while Ferret represents "Hobbesian selfishness" and self-interest, "Sir Launcelot is obviously a perfect representative of Shaftesburian principles, which assume the naturalness of altruism and gregariousness. ..." Smollett and the Scottish School (Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1959), pp. 108, 117 ff. 159 evidence of his crimes, Ferret responds as follows: *1 perceive . . . you are preparing to expostulate, and upbraid me for having given a false information against you* . . . I look upon mankind to be in a state of nature; a truth, which Hobbes has stumbled upon by accident. I think every man has a right to avail him self of his talents, even at the expense of his fellow- creatures; just as we see the fish, and other animals of the creation, devouring one another. . . . I know how far to depend upon generosity, and what is called benevolence-words to amuse the weak-minded; I build upon a surer bottom.,24 Obviously, Smollett does not approve of Ferret or of the outlook on life which he represents; in Sir Launcelot Greaves. Smollett’s attitude toward the "misanthropic satir ist" is not nearly so equivocal as it was in Peregrine Pickle. Both Ferret and Sir Launcelot are able to perceive the evils and injustices of life, but only Sir Launcelot attempts to do something about a generally sorry situation; as Robert Giddings phrases it The most important difference between them . . . is that although both find little cause for satisfaction in the state of England, Sir Launcelot rides forth in the hope of being able to achieve some improvement, whereas Ferret, who is throughout the novel described as ’the misanthrope,’ is devoid of hope, and despises England so much that he declares it to be unworthy of being saved. . . ,25 At the conclusion of Sir Launcelot Greaves. Smollett makes his disapproval of Ferret and the outlook on life he represents perfectly clear. All of the main characters 2^Works, ed. Maynadier, X, 335-336. 2^The Tradition of Smollett (London: Methuen and Company, l£67i, pp. I33-I34. 16G achieve happiness, security, and contentment at the end of the novel, and Sir Launcelot even provides financial security for Ferret and offers him a permanent home in his own household. However, in the last paragraph of the novel we learn that Ferret, at first, seemed to enjoy his easy circum stances; but the novelty of this situation soon wore off, and his misanthropy returned. He could not bear to see his fellow-creatures happy around him, and signi fied his disgust to Sir Launcelot, declaring his intention of returning to the metropolis, where he knew there would be always food sufficient for the ravenous appetite of his spleen. Before he departed, the knight made him partake of his bounty, though he could not make him taste of his happiness. . . .2° In short, once the good life is established, there is no place in it for the misanthropy, selfishness, and cynicism which Ferret represents. There are other themes and character types from Smollett’s previous novels which also appear in Sir Launcelot Greaves, but in each case they are developed and examined at least as well in Greaves as they were in the previous works. Captain Crowe, the retired sea-captain, is a character constructed along the lines of Commodore Trunnion in Peregrine Pickle, and that fact alone has been enough for one critic to condemn Smollett’s use of him as a glaring example of "self-plagiarism."2? Furthermore, there is the fact that Crowe "catches" the "madness" of Sir 26works. ed. Maynadier, X, 346. 2?Martz, Later Career of Tobias Smollett, p. 14. 161 Launcelot and decides upon a career as knight-errant for himself. Clearly, Crowe’s knight-errantry is not so well motivated as is Sir Launcelot’s, and his exploits produce humor rather than positive results. However, as one critic has pointed out . . . Smollett implies that into such a state of mean ness has humanity come that to be benevolent and generous is to be mad: when the kind-hearted but eccentric Captain Crowe announces his intention of following the example of Sir Launcelot and become knight-errant in order to spread his benevolence, his young nephew Tom Clarke advises him not to because people will think he is mad. . . ,28 Even Crowe himself understands that his plan is crazy; he responds to Tom Clarke’s objections as follows: ’Set thy heart at ease, Tom,’ cried the seaman, ’I’ll have a trip to and again in this here channel. Mad! what then? I think for my part one half of the nation is mad— and the other not very sound— I don’t see why I han’t as good a right to be mad as another man t29 • • • • ** S Of course, the whole point is that Crowe does not have the proper intelligence, education, experience, social position, and financial resources to get away with going around the country practicing knight-errantly; even Timothy Crabshaw recognizes this when he says that n . . . it an’t vor such small gentry as he to be mad; they mun leave that 2^Giddings, The Tradition of Smollett, p. 134• 2%orks, ed. Maynadier, X, S3* This quotation is one of only four from Smollett’s works listed in The Oxford Dictionary of Quotations. 2nd ed. (London: Oxford University tress, 1966), p. 506. | 162 bo their betters."^ Crowe’s motive is a noble one; but, unlike Sir Launcelot, he makes anything but a noble figure and is unable to achieve any "noble" advent tires. Sir Launcelot himself recognizes all of this and— although he applaudes Crowe’s motives--he attempts to dissuade him from following in his footsteps. Furthermore, Sir Launcelot gradually begins to recognize that he is setting a bad example for Crowe, and that in that sense his own knight- errantry is having a bad effect. This is true in spite of bhe fact that, as Sir Launcelot himself observes when he first learns of Crowe’s plan, "... madness and honesty are not incompatible— indeed, I feel it by experience."^1 tfhen Sir Launcelot finally abandons his own knight-errantry and becomes instead a country gentleman, a leader of the good life, he sets a much better example for Crowe and pro vides for him in a more satisfactory manner. Other standard Smollett character types which appear in Sir Launcelot Greaves are the faithful servant, Timothy Crabshaw— a much more vivid and interesting character than Strap in Roderick Random— and the beautiful and virtuous Aurelia Darnel, a heroine who is at least the equal of Peregrine Pickle’s Emilia. Tom Clarke, Squire Sycamore, and iDavy Dawdle represent something new in Smollett; Clarke is a tender-hearted, benevolent, and virtuous minor character, 30Works. ed. Maynadier, X, 103. 31ibid.. X, 97. 163 while Sycamore and Dawdle are— with the possible exception of Sir Stentor Stile in Count Fathom— the first really likeable ••villains” in Smollett’s fiction. And there are many interesting minor characters. A. R. Humphreys lists ”sturdy characterization” as one of several positive virtues of Smollett’s fourth novel: . . . Captain Crowe is an acceptable old sea-dog, even given the lunacy of his knight-errantry; Justice Gobble and his wife have their affinities in Fielding but are none the worse for that; Fillet the doctor, Clarke the attorney, Ferret the misanthrope, and Crabshaw the squire are decisively drawn, and there is something new in the foolish, likeable Philip Sycamore and his syco phant Davy Dawdle, who courts him by being quarrelsome. All in all, the novel, with an unexpected generosity of sentiment, a ripe sense of England before the indus trial revolution . . . and a prose-style as clean and direct as even Smollett ever achieved, deserves more than the perfunctory notice it generally gets.32 And as far as themes are concerned— in addition to those already mentioned— Robert D. Spector points out that . . . there are unnoticed levels to Smollett’s satire, unobserved distinctions in his use of Cervantes. . . . There are, too, in the book Smollett’s delight in play upon language, his sharp thrust at medical and legal and political malpractices, and the old spirit of reform that denounces conditions in English prisons and madhouses.33 Thus there is evidence that the two charges usually made against Sir Launcelot Greaves— the idea of ’ ’slavish imitation” of Cervantes and that of the use of themes and character types from previous novels— are not valid charges. 32”Fielding and Smollett,” pp. 329-330 33Tobias Smollett, p. 10S. 164 The first is inaccurate and the second is misleading. There remains, of course, the much more serious charge that— in Alan D. McKillip’s words— ’ ’ the book is not well organ ized. "3A This charge is, as we shall see, just as inaccurate and misleading as are the other two. And, furthermore, we shall see that Sir Launcelot Greaves gives, for the first time in Smollett*s fiction, a picture of the good life in action. It is this fact which gives the novel a unity and a tight and logical organization which are not to be found in Smollett*s first three novels. There is general agreement among critics that the opening scene in Sir Launcelot Greaves is one of the most delightful in all of Smollett*s fiction. George M. Kahrl comments that "The story opens with one of Smollett’s greatest scenes— the first of its kind in English fiction— when, without the conventional preamble of a biographer or historian, he plunges in medias res. . . ."35 Alan D. McKillop echoes Kahrl*s enthusiasm, but points out that this opening scene is not "the first of its kind in English fiction"; he says instead that the opening picture of the interior of the Black Lion inn is "a high visualization of a type of scene much used from Fielding to Dickens."3° The 34The Early Masters of English Fiction (Lawrence, Kans•: University of Kansas Press, 1956), p. 169. 35Tobias Smollett. Traveller-Novelist. p. 57. 3^The Early Masters of English Fiction, p. 169. 165 first two sentences of Sir Launcelot Greaves give a good indication of what both Kahrl and McKillop are talking about: It was on the great northern road from York to London, about the beginning of the month of October, and the hour of eight in the evening, that four travellers were, by a violent shower of rain, driven for shelter into a little public-house on the side of the highway, dis tinguished by a sign which was said to exhibit the figure of a black lion. The kitchen, in which they assembled, was the only room for entertainment in the house, paved with red bricks, remarkably clean, fur nished with three or four Windsor chairs, adorned with shining plates of pewter, and copper saucepans, nicely scoured, that even dazzled the eyes of the beholder; while a cheerful fire of sea-coal blazed in the chimney.37 Clearly, these opening sentences also give a good indication of what Louis L. Martz is talking about when he asserts that Smollett*s monumental labors during his "fallow” period caused his "manner of expression" to be "hammered down to the sharpness of a die."3^ And, finally, G. H. Maynadier comments upon the "promise" of these opening sentences as follows: It would be hard to find a better beginning for a wholesome novel of English life, than these first two sentences in . . . Sir Launcelot Greaves. They are full of comfort and promise. They promise that we shall get rapidly into the story; and so we do. They give us the 37works. ed. Maynadier, X, 1. 3^0ne good way to appreciate this change is to com pare the opening scene in Greaves with the various scenes at the inn in the opening episode of Peregrine Pickle. In Greaves there is much greater attention to physical details, more skill in creating mood and atmosphere, and a much more positive feeling that Smollett has described a specific place than there is in the corresponding scenes in Pickle. 166 hope, in which we are not to be disappointed, that we shall see a good deal of those English inns which to this day are delightful in reality, and which to gener ations of readers, have been delightful in fancy.39 Maynadier*s comment about the "promise” of this opening scene is even more significant if we recall the opening scenes of Smollett*s first three novels, Roderick Random begins with an account of how a defenseless child is systematically brutalized and deprived of his rightful place in life; Peregrine Pickle opens with an account of the ridiculous Gamaliel and Grizzle Pickle; and the opening scene in Ferdinand Count Fathom is a sharply satirical and essentially gruesome account of robbery and murder on the battlefield. In Greaves, however, the first impression one gets is that of the essential warmth and cheerfulness of English country life. Also, of the four main characters introduced in Chapter One, three are essentially good people. Captain Crowe is described as "an excellent seaman, I brave, active, friendly in his way, and scrupulously honest; but as little acquainted with the world as a suckling child"lawyer Tom Clarke, his nephew, is described as "a young fellow, whose goodness of heart even the exercise of his profession had not been able to corrupt. . . . he was so replete with human kindness, that as often as a affecting 39introduction to Sir Launcelot Greaves. Works. X, xi-xii. ^Works, ed. Maynadier, X, 2. 167 story or circumstance was told in his hearing, it overflowed at his eyes."^- Mr. Fillet, a "country practitioner in surgery,” is described as "a man of some education, and a great deal of experience, shrewd, sly, and sensible."42 It is only the "solitary guest," Ferret, who presents an unfavorable first impression; we are told that he . . . had something very forbidding in his aspect, which was contracted by an habitual frown. His eyes were small and red, and so deep set in the sockets, that each appeared like the unextinguished snuff of a farthing candle, gleaming through the horn of a dark lanthorn. His nostrils were elevated in scorn, as if his sense of smelling had been perpetually offended by some unsavoury odour. . . . he was never seen to smile; he was never known to speak in praise of any person whatsoever; and he was never known to give a direct answer to any question that was asked; but seemed, on all occasions, to be actuated by the most perverse spirit of contra diction. 43 As the conversation develops among these four characters it turns very naturally to the subject of law, a topic about which three of them have excellent reasons to be concerned. Crowe has been deprived of his rightful inheri tance through legal chicanery, and his nephew, Clarke, has taken it upon himself to represent him in an attempt to obtain justice. Unfortunately, however, Clarke is a man who— despite his good intentions, kind heart, and honesty— can be said to be in imminent danger of drowning in a sea of words. His long, confused discourse on the subject of 41Ibid.. X, 2-3. 42ibid.. x, 2. 43lbid.. X, 3-4. 166 the laws of entail provides some excellent ridicule of legal numbo-jumbo, and it ends— quite appropriately— with an attempt by Clarke to illustrate his vague and abstract oration by concrete reference to Dolly, the landlady’s daughter; he says, ’ 'Here’s Dolly— I seize Dolly in tail— Dolly, I seize you in tail."^ Naturally, Dolly misunder stands the point Clarke is trying to make, and we are told that Dolly, who did not comprehend the nature of the illus tration, understood him in a literal sense, and, in a whimpering tone, exclaimed, ’Sha’t then, I tell thee, cursed tuoadl’ Tom, however, was so transported with his subject, that he took no notice of poor Dolly’s mistake, but proceeded in his harangue upon the different kinds of tails, remainders, and seisins ... It is also natural that Ferret, the misanthrope and displaced party hack, should be very much concerned with the subject of law. After ridiculing Clarke’s ludicrous attempt to explain the laws of entail, we are told that Ferret . . . expatiated on the pusillanimity of the nation in general, ridiculed the militia, censured the government, Hlbid.. X, 6. 4~5lbid.. X, 6-9. Smollett uses dialect humor much more extensively in Greaves than in any of his previous novels. The speech of such characters as Dolly, Captain Crowe, Justice Gobble, and Crabshaw clearly illustrates what Robert D. Spector means when he lists "Smollett’s delight in play upon language" as one of the virtues of the novel (Tobias Smollett. p. 106). Also, the novel abounds in proverbial material; Crabshaw’s extensive use of proverbs is especially picturesque and appealing. For a discussion of this see Archer Taylor, "Proverbial Materials in Tobias Smollett, The Adventures of Sir Launcelot Greaves." Southern Folklore Quarterly. XXI (1957). 85-92. 169 and dropped some hints about a change of hands. • . • The truth is, Mr. Ferret had been a party writer, not from principle, but employment, and had felt the rod of power, in order to avoid a second exertion of which, he now found it convenient to skulk about the country* for he had received intimation of a warrant from the secretary of state, who wanted to be better acquainted with his person. . . . He had already proceeded a con siderable way in demonstrating, that the nation was bankrupt and beggared, and that those who stood at the helm were steering full into the gulf of inevitable destruction, when his lecture was suddenly suspended by a violent knocking at the door, which threatened the whole house with inevitable demolition.4-° Thus Smollett very skilfully sets the stage for the appear ance of the hero; Donald Bruce comments that "The novel opens with Ferret complaining in the inn kitchen that the nation is bankrupt and beggared. . . . There is a crash on the door and Sir Launcelot Greaves enters, in full armour, a preposterous godsend to the nation."^? Of course, it turns out that Sir Launcelot is not such a "preposterous godsend" after all; by the end of the novel he manages to restore Crowe’s rightful inheritance, establish Clarke in a more suitable line of work, prevent Clarke from literally seizing Dolly "in tail" unlawfully, expose and chastise a number of scoundrels and ruffians, and dispense a great deal of his bounty to truly deserving individuals. He even provides for Ferret the opportunity for a happy and peaceful life; as we have already seen, it ^ Works. ed. Maynadier, X, 10. ^ Radical Doctor Smollett (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1965), p. 10B. 170 is Ferret’s own fault that he does not make the most of that opportunity. Sir Launcelot’s motives are not "preposterous" — nor are the results he achieves. And, in comparison to Ferret’s sterile and impotent railing, even his methods are not totally "preposterous." Even when he first appears, he is in the process of doing a good deed: slung over his shoulder is the almost lifeless body of Timothy Crabshaw; Sir Launcelot has just saved him from drowning. This is particularly appropriate since Ferret has ended his criti cism of England with a metaphor which compares the nation to a ship that is destined to sink, and Sir Launcelot is first introduced as a man who is capable of saving people from drowning. The closely related themes of law and of the con dition of England which are introduced in the first chapter dominate the remainder of the novel. As we have already seen, the second chapter centers around a dialogue between Ferret and Sir Launcelot on the subject of whether or not Sir Launcelot is an "affected" imitator of Don Quixote and, if he is not, whether or not he is indeed "mad." After Sir Launcelot successfully defends himself from both charges, Ferret attempts to ridicule Sir Launcelot*s "scheme" on the grounds that (a) it is illegal, and (b) the condition of England is such that the "scheme" is doomed to failure. Ferret tells Sir Launcelot that his career as knight-errant "may soon be brought to a conclusion, and . . . close in 171 Bridewell, provided you meet with some determined constable, who will seize your worship as a vagrant, according to the statute."4^ Sir Launcelot replies to this charge as follows: ’You say I am in danger of being apprehended as a vagrant. I am not so ignorant of the laws of my country, but that I know the description of those who fall within the legal meaning of this odious term. You must give me leave to inform you, friend, that I am neither bearward, fencer, stroller, gipsy, mounte bank, nor mendicant; nor do I practise subtle craft, to deceive and impose upon the king’s lieges; nor can I be held as an idle disorderly person, travelling from place to place, collecting monies by virtue of counterfeited passes, briefs, and other false pre tences; in what respect, therefore, am I to be deemed a vagrant?’49 Before the end of the novel, Smollett shows that Ferret himself is guilty of several of the practices mentioned by Sir Launcelot. It is also obvious that Sir Launcelot is well acquainted with the law. One critic has said of Sir Launcelot Greaves that "... the reader may get some amusement from it if he is good enough to ignore the fact that the hero would have been arrested after the first adventure.'1'^ Sir Launcelot is, in fact, arrested after the first "adventure"— but it is the arrest itself which is illegal rather than Sir Launcelot’s actions. Ferret’s second method of attack upon Sir Launce lot ’s "scheme"— his assertion that the condition of England ^%orks. ed. Maynadier, X, 19. 49ibid.. X, 20. 5°Laurence Brander, Tobias Smollett (London: British Book Council, 195l), p. 21. 172 is such that nothing can be done— is even less effective than his first. Ferret states his opinion in a very cynical and caustic manner: ’When you consider the enormous debt of above an hundred millions, the intolerable load of taxes and impositions under which we groan, and the manner in which that burden is yearly accumulating, to support two German electorates, without our receiving anything in return, but the shows of triumph and shadows of conquest;— I say, when you reflect on these circum stances; and at the same time behold our cities filled with bankrupts, and our country with beggars, can you be so infatuated as to deny that the ministry is mad, or worse than mad— our wealth exhausted, our people miserable, our credit blasted, and our state on the brink of perdition? This prospect, indeed, will make the fainter impression, if we recollect that we our selves are a pack of such profligate, corrupted, pusillanimous rascals, as deserve no salvation.’51 Sir Launcelot then refutes these charges as follows: ’Such, indeed, are the insinuations, equally false and insidious, with which the desperate emissaries of a party endeavor to poison the minds of his majesty’s subjects, in defiance of common honesty and common sense. But . . . who does not see and own that we are involved in a just and necessary war, which has been maintained on truly British principles, prosecuted with vigour, and crowned with success; that our taxes are easy, in proportion to our wealth; that our conquests are equally glorious and important; that our commerce flourishes, our people are happy, and our enemies reduced to despair. Is there a man who boasts a British heart, that repines at the success and prosper ity of his country?’52 53-Works, ed. Maynadier, X, 22-23. 52Ibid.. X, 23. The views on current affairs expressed by Sir Launcelot are much closer than those of Ferret to Smollett’s own personal views. This should not be taken to mean, however, that Smollett was an inveterate [optimist or a jingoistic flag-waver. For an account of Smollett’s personal political convictions and activities see Knapp, Tobias Smollett: Doctor of Men and Manners, pp. 196- 247, and Spector. Tobias Smollett, pp. 107-126. 173 In light of Sir Launcelot*s reply to Ferret, it is difficult to understand how some critics have concluded that Sir Launcelot Greaves reflects ’ ’ultimate gloom and misgiving" concerning the condition of England; one such critic is Donald Bruce, who asserts that ... Smollett’s position . .. is that of all materialists, one of ultimate gloom and misgiving. The best which can be done, he suggests, is to improve the physical conditions of existence. . . • One can only shore up the rotten edifice, one can only shift the dunghill miseries of disease and indigence a little out of the way, so that at least some measure of human dignity is possible. And one can register a protest. It will do no good whatever, it is a hopeless pro- t e st. . . .53 A much more nearly accurate interpretation is that of James Ft. Foster, who concludes that Sir Launcelot Greaves contains . . . the essentials of the reform novel or the novel of ideas. His knight is a symbol of justice in an England going to the dogs. . . . Launcelot will not accept the standards of a corrupt society, of a world which has lost its way; and he proposes to do some thing about it. He will take direct action against the *foes of virtue and decorum,* the ’natural enemies of mankind.’ But this action will not be revolutionary: it will be kept within legal bounds.54 After Chapter Two, the remainder of the novel shows clearly that Sir Launcelot is right and Ferret is wrong. The events of the story are well organized and carefully planned55 to show exactly that. Chapters Three, Four, and 53Radical Doctor Smollett, p. 13S. ^ History of the Pre-Romantic Novel in England (New Iork: Modern Language Association, 1949), p. I25. 55fiy placing Ferret’s "objections" immediately before— and Crowe’s odd behavior immediately after— the account of how Sir Launcelot became a knight-errant, 174 Five provide an account of Sir Launcelot’s early life and explain the cause of his "madness." The sixth and seventh chapters give a humorous account of how Captain Crowe "catches" Sir Launcelot’s "madness"; the function of these chapters is to show that knight-errantry is, for anyone but a man like Greaves, an extravagant and ultimately futile occupation. And, as we have already indicated, Crowe’s weird behavior plants the first seeds of doubt in Sir Launcelot’s mind concerning his own knight-errantry. Sir Launcelot’s actual adventures do not begin until Chapter Eight; at this point Smollett shifts to his old device of a "variegated tour of the world" in order to examine various aspects of English life. As he progresses in his "tour," Sir Launcelot rapidly loses his desire to act as a knight- errant ; he decides before he reaches London to abandon his armor, and for the last one-third of the novel he acts as a Smollett shows considerable skill in providing a proper structural framework for the account of Sir Launcelot’s "madness." This fact, along with the other examples of skilfull organization we have seen, makes one wonder how critics can persist in calling the novel "poorly organized." Sir Walter Scott’s account of the method of composition Smollett employed in writing Greaves is probably the origi nal source of such "criticism." Scott asserts that "Smollett appears to have executed his task with very little premeditation. . . • when post-time drew near, he used to retire for half an hour or an hour, to prepare the necessary quantity of copy . . . which he never gave himself the trouble to correct or even read over." Lives of the Novelists (London: Oxford University Press, 1906J, p. 52. As kobert D. Spector observes, "Scott’s story . . . makes Smollett something of a superman to have composed so much copy in so little time." Tobias Smollett, p. 109. .175 plain, normal English country gentleman rather than as a "lunatic” knight-errant. Perhaps critics who call Sir Launcelot Greaves a "slavish imitation" of Don Quixote have failed to notice this important fact. The story of Sir Launcelot*s early life is given in flashback form; appropriately, the "tender-hearted" Tom Clarke, whose father was a long-time employee of the Greaves family, narrates this part of the story. We learn that Sir Launcelot has been an extremely generous, virtuous, and benevolent person all his life, and that this fact has caused him to be branded as an "eccentric"— especially in light of the fact that It was the lower sort of people with whom he chiefly conversed, such as ploughmen, ditchers, and other day- labourers. To every cottager in the parish he was a bounteous benefactor. He was, in the literal sense of the word, a careful overseer of the poor; for he went from house to house, industriously inquiring into the distresses of the people. He repaired their huts, clothed their backs, filled their bellies, and supplied them with necessaries for exercising their industry and different occupations.56 We learn that after his father’s death and the disappoint ment of his apparent rejection by his beloved Aurelia, Sir Launcelot became even more active and aggressive in his benevolence, and that "... in a little time his gener osity seemed to overlap the bounds of discretion, and even in some cases might be thought tending to a breach of the King’s peace."^7 As a lawyer, of course, Tom Clarke is 56works. ed. Maynadier, X, 32-33* 57lbid., X, 62 176 concerned with the letter of the law and in the course of his narration he sometimes indicates that Sir Launcelot*s activities are not always strictly "legal." There is a subtle irony here; Clarke is also a benevolent and generous person, but his concern for the law blinds him to some extent to the fact that Sir Launcelot*s "illegal" activities bring about the justice that the law is theoretically sup posed to achieve. Clarke finally summarizes Sir Launcelot*s activities as follows: The knight acted as the general redresser of grievances. If a woman complained to him of being ill-treated by her husband, he first inquired into the foundation of the complaint, and, if he found it just, catechised the defendant. If the warning had no effect, and the man proceeded to fresh acts of violence, then his judge took the execution of the law in his own hand, and horse whipped the party. Thus he involved himself in several lawsuits, that drained him of pretty large sums of money. He seemed particularly incensed at the least appearance of oppression; and supported divers poor tenants against the extortion of their landlords.5° Clearly, then, it is Sir Launcelot*s failure to achieve one essential ingredient of. the good life— virtuous wedlock— that leads to his "mad" decision to become a knight-errant. Furthermore, the fact that he is tricked jinto believing that Aurelia has rejected him for no good reason further disturbs him and causes him to abandon what 5&Ibid.. X, 63-64. The picture of Sir Launcelot among his own tenants is one of the most charming parts of the novel. A. R. Humphreys comments that "The picture of Launcelot among his country tenants in the third chapter is a pleasant glimpse of Hanoverian rural life at a time of prosperity." "Fielding and Smollett," p. 329. 177 is clearly an important and noble career—-that of country gentleman and benevolent landlord59— and to try to sublimate his disappointment by spreading truth, justice, and benevo lence throughout all of England. To that extent he is "mad”— but it is obviously a fine and noble "madness."6° Critics who assert that Greaves is "poorly organized" and that there is no logical connection between the various episodes of the novel should, perhaps, pay closer attention to the one major interruption that occurs 59smollett was not, of course, the only eighteenth century author to attribute such importance to the role of country gentleman and landlord. In his journal entry for June 25, 1763 (less than two years after the appearance of Greaves). James Boswell records the following remark by Samuel Johnson: "Sir, let me tell you that to be a Scotch landlord, where you have a number of families dependent lupon and attached to you, is perhaps as high a situation as 'humanity can arrive at. A merchant upon ’Change with a (hundred thousand pounds is nothing* The Duke of Bedford iwith all his immense fortune is but a little man in reality. He has no tenants who consider themselves as under his patriarchal care." Boswell*s London Journal. 1762-1763. ed. Frederick A. Pottle (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Com- pany, 1950), p. 2B4. 60Again, one is reminded of what Dr. Johnson had to say on this subject; speaking of the mad poet, Christopher Smart, Johnson observed that "Madness frequently discovers itself merely by unnecessary deviation from the usual modes of the world. My poor friend Smart shewed the disturbance of his mind, by falling upon his knees, and saying his prayers in the street, or in any other unusual place. Now although, rationally speaking, it is greater madness not to pray at all, than to pray as Smart did, I am afraid there are so many who do not pray, that their understanding is not called in question. . . . I do not think he ought to be shut up. His infirmities were not noxious to society. He insisted on people praying with him; and I’d as lief E ray with Kit Smart as any one else." James Boswell, The ife of Samuel Johnson (London: Oxford University Press, 1953), P. 281. 173 during the three chapters in which Tom Clarke relates the history of Sir Launcelot*s early life. Almost exactly in the middle of Tom’s story, he is interrupted by * » . . . a hideous repetition of groans, that seemed to issue from the chamber in which the body of the squire [Crabshaw] was deposited.”61 We learn that Crabshaw has had a terrible nightmare and that this has caused him to cry out in such a horrible manner: The perturbation of his brain, occasioned by . . . the fright he had lately undergone, gave rise to a very terrible dream, in which he fancied himself apprehended for a robbery. The horror of the gallows was strong upon him, when he was suddenly awakened by a violent shock from the doctor; and the company broke in upon his view, still perverted by fear, and bedimmed by slumber. His dream was now realized by a full persuasion that he was surrounded by the constable and his gang. The first object that presented itself to his disordered view was the figure of Ferret, who might very well have passed for the finisher of the law. . . .62 Ferret is thus mistaken for the law by Crabshaw, and . . . against him, therefore, the first effort of his despair was directed. He started upon the floor, and seizing a certain utensil, that shall be nameless, launched it at the misanthrope with such violence, that had he not cautiously slipt his head aside, it is sup posed that actual fire would have been produced from the collision of two such hard and solid substances.63 This can, of course, be viewed as merely another example of Smollett’s "chamber-pot” humor, or as simply a vestige of serial publication; a source of suspense is needed at the conclusion of Chapter Four and the mystery must then be 63-Works. ed. Maynadier, X, 64-65. 62Ibid.. X, 66. 63ibid.. X, 66-67. 179 explained at the beginning of Chapter Five, Nevertheless, it must be admitted that Crabshaw*s unintentional evaluation of Ferret as "the law" is just as appropriate for a char acter like Crabshaw as is the more sophisticated and cerebral evaluation given by Sir Launcelot. Once Sir Launcelot sets out on his actual adventures (after the episode where Crowe "catches" Sir Launcelot*s "madness"), there is again a very clear and logical pattern in the various "adventures" he has. His first such "adventure" is to rescue a lady from highwaymen (Smollett informs us that the lady is actually Aurelia, but Sir Launcelot does not know this), and his resulting fatigue causes him to stop to rest in a market town. It is in this town that Sir Launcelot witnesses a political campaign, and this gives Smollett a chance to dramatize the points that were given in the form of dialectic in the earlier discus sion between Sir Launcelot and Ferret. The subject is still, of course, the condition of England. The preliminaries to the election speeches set the tone for what follows; we are informed that the Tories, incensed by charges of "Popish pretender" and "slavery" immediately "... began to ply their horsewhips among the multitude, and were, in their turn, saluted with a discharge or volley of stones, dirt, and dead cats; in consequence of which some teeth were demolished, and many surtouts 180 defiled.Nor do the descriptions of the candidates give much promise of reason, honesty, and fair play: . . . the competitors were Sir Valentine Quickset and Mr. Isaac Vanderpelft; the first a mere fox-hunter, who depended for success in his election upon his interest among the high-flying gentry; the other a stock-jobber and contractor of foreign extract, not without a mixture of Hebrew blood, immensely rich, who was countenanced by his Grace of ______, and supposed to have distributed large sums in securing a majority of votes among the yeomanry of the country, possessed of small freeholds, and copyholders, a great number of which last resided in this borough. The boorish Tory, Sir Valentine, is the first to address the crowd; pig-headedness, bigotry, self-assurance, provin cialism, and stupidity characterize his speech, but, like Fielding’s Squire Western, he nevertheless has a certain charm to his manner of expression: ’Gentlemen vreeholders of this here county, I shan’t pretend to meake a vine flourishing speech— I’m a plain-spoken man, as you all know. I hope I shall always speak my maind without vear or vavour, as the saying is. *T is the way of the Quicksets— we are no upstarts, nor vorreigners, nor have we any Jewish blood in our veins; we have lived in this here neighborhood 64Ibid., X, 115. 65lbid.. X, 118. Writing during World War II, George Orwell" pointed out that some passages in Smollett "would be called antisemitic if they had been written since Hitler came to power." The racial slur in the description of Vanderpelft, and also the one in the following speech by Sir Valentine, are probably the sort of thing Orwell had in mind. However, it is important to remember that— as indi cated in Chapter III— Smollett’s portrait of Joshua, the "noble Hebrew" in Ferdinand Count Fathom, was designed to propagandize in favor of the Jewish Naturalization Bill of 1753. For Orwell’s comment see The Collected Essays. Journalism, and Letters of George Orwell, ed. Sonia Orwell and Ian Angus (4 vols.; foew York: harcourt, Brace and World, 1968), III, 91. 181 time out of mind, as you all know, and possess an estate of vive thousand clear, which we spend at whoam, among you, in old English hospitality. All my vore- vathers have been parliament-men, and I can prove that neTer a one o’ urn gave a zingle vote for the court since the Revolution. Vor my own peart, I value not the ministry three skips of a louse, as the zaying is. . . . I hate all vorreigners and vorreign measures, whereby this poor nation is broken-backed with a dismal load of debt . . . if you will vavour me with your votes and interest, whereby I may be returned, I’ll engage one half of my estate that I never cry yea to vourshillings in the pound, but will cross the ministry in everything, as in duty bound. . . .’6° The oration of Mr. Vanderpelft, the Whig candidate, is described rather than quoted; we are told that He owned himself a faithful subject to his Majesty King George, sincerely attached to the Portestant succession, in detestation and defiance of a popish, an abjured, and outlawed Pretender; and declared that he would exhaust his substance and his blood, if necessary, in maintaining the principles of the glorious Revolution. ’This,’ he cried, ’is the solid basis and foundation upon which I stand.’°7 We are told, however, that Vanderpelft’s "... last words had scarce proceeded from his mouth, when the head of the barrel or puncheon on which he stood, being frail and infirm, gave way, so that down he went with a crash, and in a twinkline disappeared from the eyes of the astonished demn himself through what he says and how he says it, and the action which punctuates the remarks of the Whig shows that his "platform" is even less sound than that of Sir Thus Smollett makes the Tory candidate con- 66works. ed. Maynadier, X, 119-120. 6?Ibid., X, 120-121. 6gIbid.. X, 121. 1&2 Valentine. Smollett views the election campaign as a farce and implies that all "party” men are ignorant fanatics. Sir Launcelot is, of course, dismayed and horrified by what each candidate has to say— and by the general chaos and violence which follows the campaign speeches. He attempts to inject some measure of reason and good sense into the proceedings by addressing the crowd in the follow ing manner: Countrymen, friends, and fellow-citizens, you are this day assembled to determine a point of the utmost con sequence to yourselves and your posterity; a point that ought to be determined by far other weapons than brutal force and factious clamour. You, the freemen of England, are the basis of that excellent constitution which hath long flourished the object of envy and admiration. To you belongs the inestimable privilege of choosing a delegate properly qualified to represent you in the High Court of Parliament. . . . It is not only your birthright, which you should maintain in defiance of all danger, but also a sacred trust, to be executed with the most scrupulous care and fidelity.f°9 He then evaluates Sir Valentine in very devastating terms: Cut these great purposes will never be answered by electing an illiterate savage, scarce qualified, in point of understanding, to act as a country justice of peace, a man who has scarce ever travelled beyond the excursion of a fox-chase, whose conversation never rambles farther than his stable, his kennel, and the barnyard; who rejects decorum as degeneracy, mistakes rusticity for independence, ascertains his courage by leaping over gates and ditches, and founds his triumph on feats of drinking; who holds his estate by a factious tenure, professes himself the blind slave of a party, without knowing the principles that gave it birth, or the motives by which it was actuated, and thinks that all patriotism consists in railing indiscriminately at ministers, and obstinately opposing every measure of the administration. Such a man, with no evil intentions 69lbid.. X, 121-122 133 of his own, might be used as a dangerous tool in the hands of a desperate faction, by scattering the seeds of disaffection, embarrassing the wheels of government, and reducing the whole kingdom to anarchy.*70 Although he deplores the ignorance and pig-headedness of Sir Valentine, Sir Launcelot views the Whig candidate as even more culpable because he is morally corrupt: ’Such a man as I have described may be dangerous from ignorance, but is neither so mischievous, nor so detestable as the wretch who knowingly betrays his trust, and sues to be the hireling and prostitute of a weak and worthless minister; a sordid knave, without honour or principle, who belongs to no family whose example can reproach him with degeneracy, who has no country to command his respect, no friend to engage his affection, no religion to regulate his morals, no con science to restrain his iniquity, and who worships no god but Mammon; an insinuating miscreant, who undertakes for the dirtiest work of the vilest administration; who practises national usury, receiving by wholesale the rewards of venality, and distributing the wages of corruption by retail.’71 Sir Launcelot then concludes by advising the citizens 1 1 . . . to avoid the opposite extremes of the ignorant clown and the designing courtier, and choose a man of honesty, intel ligence and moderation.n72 This advice has the predictable result: "The Whigs and the Tories joined against this intruder, who, being neither, was treated like a monster, or chimera in politics."73 At this point in the novel Ferret reappears; dis guised as a mountebank, he gives a long, meaningless speech in favor of an "elixir of long life" he has for sale, and 70lbid.. X, 122-123. 71ibid.. X, 123 72lbid.. X, 124-125. 73Ibid.. X, 125 134 the audience forgets all about Sir Launcelot and the two candidates as they flock to buy Ferret’s "elixir." Robert Giddings comments upon the significance of this as follows: The purpose of the election scene . . . and its juxta position with the scene in the following chapter in which Ferret appears . . • is to show that people are gullible because they are incapable of attending to reason. Sir Launcelot . . . when he attempts to reason with the crowd is not listened to, but Ferret is able to persuade the stupid crowd to buy his potions by a series of implausible statements and rhetorical tricks. After the blustering speech of Sir Valentine Quickset and the sly rhetoric of Mr. Vanderpelft, the short harangue of Sir Launcelot . . . appears as the very epitome of common sense (the irony is, of course, that he is supposed to be of deranged mind). . . . At this point the crowd can stand no more and Sir Launcelot is stoned and hooted into silence. But Ferret, on the other hand, has amazing success with his nostrum by virtue of his moving speech, in which he carefully avoids saying anything at all. . . .74 Though he succeeds in selling his elixir to the crowd, the extreme Tory sentiments of Ferret’s speech enrage the Whigs and they succeed in having him arrested. The wily Ferret, however, manages to secure his own release almost immedi ately by swearing that Sir Launcelot and Crabshaw are the real culprits. As a result, Sir Launcelot is seized and placed in jail; he becomes the first hero of a Smollett novel to go to jail unjustly. At this point in the novel it appears as if there is a large measure of truth in Ferret’s claim that England is "not worthy of being saved." The theories debated by Ferret and Sir Launcelot have been tested in the arena of 74The Tradition of Smollett, pp. 136-137. 135 practical experience, and it seems as if Ferret was right. Not only is the noble Sir Launcelot in jail, but the other good characters, Clarke, Crowe, and Crabshaw, are in the same jail with him. Actually, however, the jailing of Sir Launcelot turns out to be a most fortunate event; when Sir Launcelot*s numerous fellow-prisoners find out who he is, they immediately call upon him for relief and assistance: . . . a crew of naked wretches crowded around him, and, like a congregation of rooks, opened their throats all at once, in accusation of Justice Gobble. The knight was moved at this scene, which he could not help com paring, in his own mind, to what would appear upon a much more awful occasion, when the cries of the widow and the orphan, the injured and oppressed, would be uttered in the tribunal of an unerring Judge, against the villanous and insolent authors of their calamity.75 Sir Launcelot naturally wants to know more about this cruel and inhuman magistrate, and he is provided with the following information: . . • Justice Gobble, whose father was a tailor, had for some time served as a journeyman hosier in London, where he had picked up some law terms, by conversing with hackney writers and attorneys* clerks of the lowest order; that, upon the death of his master, he had insinuated himself into the good graces of the widow, who took him for her husband, so that he became a person of some consideration, and saved money apace; that his pride, increasing with his substance, was reinforced by the vanity of his wife, who persuaded him to retire from business, that they might live genteelly in the country ... that a certain peer being indebted to him . . . had compounded the debt, by inserting his name in the commission; since which period his own insolence, and his wife’s ostentation, had exceeded all bounds. . • .76 75Works, ed. Maynadier, X, 11+0. 76ibid., X, 140-141. 186 Sir Launcelot’s handling of Justice Gobble is actually the turning point in the novel. When he is finally taken before Gobble, Sir Launcelot reduces him to a state of terror and despair by pointing out that he has illegally arrested a gentleman; we are told that n . • . the Justice, who had heard of Sir Launcelot’s family and fortune, though an utter stranger to his person, was seized with such pangs of terror and compunction, as a grovelling mind may be supposed to have felt in such circumstances.”77 Sir Launce lot then addresses Justice Gobble in the following manner: ’If I thought the errors of your administration pro ceeded from a good intention, defeated by want of understanding, I should pity your ignorance, and, in compassion, advise you to desist from acting a part for which you are so ill qualified; but the preposterous conduct of such a man deeply affects the interest of the community, especially that part of it, which, from its helpless situation, is the more entitled to your protection and assistance. I am, moreover, convinced that your misconduct is not so much the consequence of an uninformed head, as the poisonous issue of a malig nant heart, devoid of humanity, inflamed with pride, and rankling with revenge. . . . This indeed is generally the case of low fellows, who are thrust into the magistracy without sentiment, education, or capac ity. 77ibid.. X, 155. 7^Ibid.. X, 158-159. Clearly, this is an attack not upon the law, but rather upon the admini strat ion of the law by an incompetent scoundrel. In the election scene, Smollett gave a good indication of how and why a monster such as Gobble might achieve a position of power and authority (Gobble is a mixture of the worst qualities of iQuickset and Vanderpelft), and now he provides a concrete example of what happens when that possibility is realized. Smollett’s method of attack is very much like Fielding’s, as described by Glenn W. Hatfield, Jr.: ’ ’Fielding was always the most responsible of satirists, and when he turned 137 Sir Launcelot*s first impulse is to take the law into his own hands and "execute” Gobble on the spot; however, he controls this impulse and instead reacts as follows: ♦Thank Heaven, the laws of this country have exempted me from the disagreeable task of such an execution. To them we shall have immediate recourse, in three separate actions against you for false imprisonment; and any other person who has been injured by your arbitrary and wicked proceedings, in me shall find a warm protector, until you shall be expunged from the commission with disgrace, and have made such retaliation as your cir cumstances will allow for the wrongs you have done the community.*79 Sir Launcelot does exactly what he says he will do; Gobble is removed from the commission, a number of illegally con demned prisoners are released, and those persons whom Gobble has robbed and persecuted are given assistance and comfort. It is only when Sir Launcelot acts in his proper role as benevolent country gentleman, and acts within the law, that such widespread relief is possible. As Sir Launcelot learned at the market town, appeals to reason and dependence upon "popular” sentiment are equally futile— the first because people will not or cannot listen to reason, and the his fire against the pedantic doctors, dishonest lawyers, and canting clergymen who crowd his plays and novels it was with quite as clear a conception of the ideal standards of these professions, and respect for them, as that which his attacks on Grub Street scribblers, ruthless politicians, and effete politeness presuppose for the true Republic of Letters, for true patriotism, and for true gentility." "Quacks, Pettyfoggers, and Parsons: Fielding*s Case Against the Learned Professions," Texas Studies in Literature and Language. IX (1967), 69-70. 79works. ed. Maynadier, X, 160. 138 second because such sentiment is invariably capricious and blind. It is only the good man, the leader of the good life, who, from an impregnable position of power and authority, can bring some measure of order, stability, and justice. In effect, Smollett modifies Sir Thomas More’s premise that "a people’s welfare or misery flows wholly from their prince, as from a never-failing spring,"^ and pictures the individual country gentleman, the leader of the good life, as one of a number of independent "princes" whose conduct does, indeed, determine the people’s "welfare or misery." Utopia, for Smollett, would be a world in which men like Sir Launcelot were the rule rather than the excep tion. It seems for a while after this episode that Sir Launcelot will completely abandon his knight-errantry. However, he is still very upset over Aurelia’s supposed rejection of him; when he again reads her final letter, he reacts as follows: Having pronounced aloud the words that composed this dismission, he hastily replaced the cruel scroll, and being too well acquainted with the hand to harbour the least doubt of its being genuine, threw himself into his bed in a transport of despair, mingled with resentment, during the predominancy of which he deter mined to proceed in the career of adventure, and endeavor to forget the unkindness of his mistress amidst the avocations of knight-errantry.81 ^Utopia in The Norton Anthology of English Liter ature. ed. to. H. Abrams, and others (2 vols.: New ‘ fork: W. W. Norton and Company, 1962), I, 356. ________3lWorks. ed. Mavnadier. X, 184. 139 The final blow to Sir Launcelot*s knight-errantry comes when he is challenged to a duel by his rival for Aurelia’s love, Squire Sycamore. At the time that Sycamore offers his challenge, Sir Launcelot has almost abandoned knight-errantry anyway; his ability to do much more good when he acts as a plain English gentleman rather than as a knight-errant is one reason for this, and his opportunities to observe the further misadventures of Crowe as a knight- errant is another. Also, the fact that he is reasonably sure that he will be able to locate Aurelia when he arrives in London is a very important reason. When Sycamore offers his challenge, Sir Launcelot’s thoughts run as follows: Even in his maddest hours, he never adopted those maxims of knight-errantry which related to challenges. He always perceived the folly and wickedness of defying a man to mortal fight, because he did not like the colour of his beard, or the complexion of his mistress; or of deciding by homicide whether he or his rival deserved the preference, when it was the lady’s pre rogative to determine which should be the happy lover. It was his opinion that chivalry was an useful institu tion while confined to its original purposes of protecting the innocent, assisting the friendless, and bringing the guilty to condign punishment. But he could not conceive how these laws should be answered by violating every suggestion of reason, and every precept of humanity.°2 Sir Launcelot is unable to avoid a fight with Sycamore, but after he defeats him he abandons knight-errantry perman ently. Smollett has organized the novel in such a manner that it is when Sir Launcelot has been finally confronted g2Ibid., X, 245-246 190 with the most absurd and dangerous aspect of knight-errantry that he makes his final decision to give it up. After Sir Launcelot reaches London, two more major episodes occur; again, they provide further comment on the two themes of law and of the condition of England. Sir Launcelot visits a prison while in the process of searching for Aurelia, and this gives Smollett a chance to comment upon the English prison system.^3 The story of the Clewline family (another of Smollett’s inset narratives) is the central part of the prison episode. One critic has main tained, without offering any evidence to support his contention, that this episode ” ... is not satisfactorily presented or intelligently developed.Actually, however, it is a very important part of the story. Sir Launcelot’s guides at King’s Bench prison are Mr. Norton, the jailer, and Mr. Felton, a veteran inmate. Sir Launcelot’s initial impression of the place is very favorable: Under the auspices of Mr. Norton, he made a tour of the prison, and, in particular, visited the kitchen, where he saw a number of spits loaded with a variety of provision, consisting of butchers’ meat, poultry, and ^3smollett himself was confined in the King’s Bench prison for three months during the period in which Sir Launcelot Greaves was being written. It is possible that Smollett wrote part of the novel while in prison. See Knapp, Tobias Smollett: Doctor of Men and Manners, pp. 230- 236. See also Alice barker, "Tobias Smollett and the Law," Studies in Philology. XXXIX (1942), 545-553* ^Giddings, The Tradition of Smollett, p. 133. 191 game. He could not help expressing his astonishment, with uplifted hands, and congratulating himself in secret upon his being a member of that community which had provided such a comfortable asylum for the unfor tunate. His ejaculation was interrupted by a tumultuous noise in the street. . • .°5 Mr. Felton then explains that the "tumultuous noise in the street" is caused by a fierce battle between two prisoners and their partisans, and says "You must know, gentlemen, that this microcosm, or republic in miniature, is like the great world, split into factions." Sir Launcelot is, of course, horrified to learn this (just as, in the market town, he was horrified to learn the truth about party politics), but Mr. Felton explains that this partisan division is actually beneficial in some ways because " . . . such violent proceedings . • . [serve] as convenient vents for the evaporation of those humours, which, being confined, might accumulate and break out with greater fury in con spiracy and rebellion," and because "One party is an ^ Works. ed. Maynadier, X, 269-270. ^ Ibid.. X, 270. It is interesting to note that the pattern of experiences here is the same as it was in chapter one. The description of the prison kitchen here— like that of the inn kitchen in chapter one— suggests warmth and comfort; this mood is shattered here by the noise in the street, just as in chapter one the violent knocking on the door causes a sudden shift in mood. In each case, the causes of the disturbances appear at first glance to be ominous and malignant (Sir Launcelot in chapter one, the street fight here), but closer inspection reveals that they are beneficial rather than harmful. For a discussion of Smollettfs use of "microcosms" see Grant T. Webster, "Smollett*s Microcosms: A Satiric Device in the Novel," Satire Newsletter. V (1967), 34-37* 192 effectual check upon the other." ' Sir Launcelot learns, then, that partisan conflict is not always the simple matter of black and white, right and wrong, that he believed it was when he interfered in the election campaign at the market town. Since he has abandoned his knight-errantry, and since his having seen the results of such conflict in the "microcosm" allows greater objectivity, he is not nearly so eager to impose his ideals upon a recalcitrant and refrac tory world. This does not mean, of course, that he has abandoned those ideals. To Sir Launcelot, the most astonishing thing about the partisan conflict he witnesses at the prison is the fact that one of the active participants is a woman. He asks Felton for the particulars of her story, and Felton informs him that "... you will be more surprised when you hear that within these eighteen months she was actually a person of fashion, and her opponent, who by the bye is her husband, universally respected as a man of honour and a brave officer." Felton then relates the story of how the Clewlines married for love, were consequently rejected by their families, gradually descended into indigence, misery, and despair, and eventually reached their present state of drunken and brutal insensibility. The moral of all this is, ^?Works. ed. Maynadier, X, 270. g8Ibid.. X, 275. 193 as Mrs. Clewline herself phrases it, that M • . . decorum is founded upon a delicacy of sentiment and deportment, which cannot consist with the disgraces of a jail, and the miseries of indigence."^ It is important to recall here that in Ferdinand Count Fathom Smollett insisted that virtue would always triumph over vice and that a "noble Hebrew” or a rich widow would miraculously appear to see to it that no really "good” person ever suffered irreversible harm. Understanding, charity, and benevolence were needed when the difficulties of the Clewlines first began, but now it is too late for them. Mr. Felton describes the present condition of the Clewlines: They are now metamorphosed into the shocking creatures you have seen; he into a riotous plebeian, and she into a ragged trull. They are both drunk every day, quarrel and fight one with another, and often insult their fellow-prisoners. Yet they are not wholly abandoned by virtue and humanity. The captain is scrupulously honest in all his dealings, and pays his debts punctually every quarter, as soon as he receives his half-pay. Every prisoner in distress is welcome to share his money while it lasts; and his wife never fails, while it is in her power, to relieve the wretched; so that their generosity, even in this miser able disguise, is universally respected by their neighbours. The final major episode of Greaves occurs when Sir Launcelot is illegally seized and confined in a private madhouse. Ironically, this happens only after he has finally divested himself of the last traces of his "mad ness." When he finds himself in this deplorable situation, 39Ibid.. X, 274. 90ibid.. X, 282 194 his first reaction is to repent again of his former "mad” behavior: Our adventurer was no longer in doubt concerning the place to which he had been conveyed; and the more he reflected on his situation, the more he was over whelmed with the most perplexing chagrin. He could not conceive by whose means he had been immured in a mad house; but he heartily repented of his knight-errantry, as a frolic which might have very serious consequences, with respect to his future life and fortune.91 Sir Launcelot soon learns, however, that the ’ 'madhouse" is really an illegal jail, and that the "Doctor" in charge is not even concerned about whether or not his charges are really "insane.” His repentance immediately changes to indignation: 'How little reason,* said he to himself, 'have we to boast of the blessings enjoyed by the British subject, if he holds them on such a precarious tenure; if a man of rank and property may be thus kidnapped even in the midst of the Capitol; if he may be seized by ruffians, insulted, robbed, and conveyed to such a prison as this, from which there seems to be no possibility of escape! .... People may inveigh against the Bastile in France and the Inquisition in Portugal; but I would ask, if either of these be in reality so dangerous or dreadful as a private madhouse in England, under the direction of a ruffian? . . . in England, the most innocent person upon earth is liable to be immured for life under the pretext of lunacy . . . and subjected to the most brutal treatment from a low-bred barbarian, who raises an ample fortune on the misery of his fellow-creatures, and may, during his whole life, practise this horrid oppression, without question or control.*92 Again, it is the law that is invoked in order to extricate Sir Launcelot from his difficulties. Tom Clarke, Crowe, and his other friends manage to learn where Sir Launcelot is 91Ibid.. X, 30S. 92Ibid., X, 313-314 195 confined, and they obtain a search warrant and secure his release. Once he is free, Sir Launcelot himself obtains a warrant and frees Aurelia, who was, he has learned, confined in exactly the same place. Once she has been freed, Sir Launcelot, we are told, . . . having vindicated the liberty, confirmed the safety, and secured the heart of his charming Aurelia, now found leisure to unravel the conspiracy which had been executed against his person; and with that view commenced a lawsuit against the owner of the house where he and his mistress had been separately confined. Mr. Shackle was, notwithstanding all the submissions and atonement which he offered to make, either in private or in public, indicted on the statute of kidnapping, tried, convicted, punished by a severe fine and standing in the pillory. A judicial writ ad inquirendum being executed, the prisons of his inquisition were laid open, and several innocent cap tives enlarged.93 The final comment which this novel makes concerning the law is, then, that it may be slow but it does work. As far as the condition of England is concerned, we learn that there is much that is wrong, much that is evil and corrupt, but that the law can be made to deal effectively with this evil and corruption. What is needed is for men like Sir Launcelot to act in their proper capacity as leaders of the good life and to exercise their leadership, understanding, charity, and benevolence in a sensible and legal manner. This is the good life in action, and the unhappy overtones suggested by the story of the Clewlines and by Ferret1s misanthropy are more than muffled by the final account of 93Ibid.. X, 331. 196 Sir Launcelot and his wife: The perfect and uninterrupted felicity of the knight and his endearing consort, diffused itself through the whole adjacent country, as far as their example and influence could extend. They were admired, esteemed, and applauded by every person of taste, sentiment, and benevolence; at the same time beloved, revered, and almost adored by the common people, among whom they suffered not the merciless hand of indigence or misery to seize one single sacrifice.94 Finally, the above survey of the actual events and episodes of Sir Launcelot Greaves indicates that the novel is unified and well organized, and there is therefore con siderable reason to doubt the assertions of critics like Martz, Kahrl, and McKillop who dismiss the novel as the ’ ’ worst" of Smollett’s works, as a "slavish imitation" of Don Quixote, or as a work which is "not well organized." Interestingly enough, not one of these three critics offers any really valid or convincing evidence or argument in support of his negative evaluation of the novel; in fact, each of them presents an impressive list of positive virtues rather than a list of specific "weaknesses." Apparently, no such list of specific "weaknesses" exists for the simple reason that the weaknesses themselves do not exist; until convincing specific evidence to the contrary is offered, we may assume that such a "list" would, if it were to be com piled, have the same sort of terseness and brevity possessed by the seventy-second chapter of The Natural History of 94ibid.. X, 346 197 I c e l a n d . From the point of view of the development of Smollett’s style, and from that of his handling of themes and character types from his previous novels, Greaves represents a very definite improvement. And, more impor tantly for purposes of the present study, Smollett’s presentation and examination of the concept of the good life in Greaves is much more thorough, comprehensive, interest ing, and convincing than it is in any of his previous novels. Finally, Sir Launcelot Greaves is in many ways a rich and appealing work; in that respect it is a fitting prelude to Smollett’s last— and greatest— novel. 95'ftQhap, LXXH. Concerning snakes. There are no snakes to be met with throughout the whole island.’1 1 Quoted in Boswell, The Life of Samuel Johnson, pp. 937-933• CHAPTER V THE GOOD LIFE IN ACTION; PART II; HUMPHRY CLINKER There is almost universal agreement among critics that Smollett,s final novel, Humphry Clinker, is his "masterpiece."'*' However, there is surprisingly little agreement as to exactly why this final work is Smollett’s greatest achievement. One critic asserts that Clinker is actually Smollett’s "debut" and that it represents a com plete and revolutionary change: Tobias Smollett’s importance in the history of the English novel is somewhat obscured by the fact that the novel on which his claims can best stand, . . . Humphry Clinker, is also his last, completed only shortly before his death in 1771. Written rather late for a debut, Humphry Clinker is also too radically unlike Smollett’s earlier novels to serve as a digni fying climax to them— as revelation, that is, of a direction in which those earlier novels were tending all the time. Yet if we compare Humphry Clinker to the earlier novels, we can see something of the nature of the change it represents, as well as the gross size of that change; specifically, we can see how at the end of his life Smollett broke free from his picaresque models, creating instead a fully domesticated English novel iTwo notable exceptions are George Orwell, who views Roderick Random and Peregrine Pickle as Smollett’s greatest achievements and asserts that Humphry Clinker is "not worth reading" [The Collected Essavsj Journalism. and Letters of George Orwell, ed. Sonia Orwell and lan Angus (A vols.: New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, 196G), III, 24^7], and Robert Giddings, who calls Humphry Clinker a "wasted expedition." The Tradition of Smollett (London: Methuen and Company, 1967), p. I40. 19S 199 that fitted his own genius and his view of the world in tone, subject matter, and narrative form, and that was to provide a broadly useful and comprehensible influ ence for English novelists who followed him.2 A similar point of view is expressed by Alan D. McKillop, who says that Humphry Clinker is remarkable because Smollett’s n . • . humor is softened by sheer fun and even by a playful and sentimental vein remarkable in a battered veteran of letters.Other critics emphasize the similarity of Clinker to Smollett’s previous novels and argue that the work is not radically different in nature from the earlier works. One such critic is Robert D. Spector, who maintains that all five of Smollett’s novels are variations upon the "picaresque formula" and that "The insistence that Humphry Clinker employs a technique remote from the picaresque emanates from a belief that the genre is incapable of subtle development."^ Spector also states that The plot of Smollett’s final novel indeed shows a remarkably strong resemblance to that of Roderick Random, and it suggests that Smollett was extending the possibilities of the picaresque rather than discarding it. Humphry Clinker repeats from the earlier novel the elements of ’the missing-father-found, estranged- lovers-united, paternal-estate-reclaimed, reward-for- everybody-ending.’ But, even more importantly, the 2Monroe Engel, Foreword to the Signet Classics edition of Humphry Clinker (New York: New American Library, I960), p. v. ^From Drvden to Burns (New York: Appleton-Century- Crofts, 1948), p. 274. ^•Tobias Smollett (New York: Twayne Publishing Company, 1968), p. 129. 200 narrative holds together through the characteristic picaresque device of a journey motif used as a vehicle for social satire ,5 It is clear that the basic conflict between the points of view of critics such as Engel and Spector centers around the definition of the term "picaresque.” Engel defines the term in a rather narrow manner and insists that the superiority of Smollett’s final novel is due to the fact that he finally managed to "escape" from the "picaresque models" upon which he had patterned his earlier works. Con versely, Spector defines "picaresque" in a much more broad and general manner and views Humphry Clinker as a result of Smollett’s ability to expand and to extend his basic "picaresque formula." Neither of these approaches is wholly satisfactory. Engel’s approach is negative; he is intent upon showing how Clinker is unlike Smollett’s other works and consequently he distorts, undervalues, or overlooks many obvious and significant similarities. On the other hand, Spector’s attempt to show how Clinker is like Smollett’s other works dwells primarily upon superficial similarities, and he fails properly to account for and to evaluate significant differences. In Spector’s case, one is tempted to point out that his key definition of "the characteristic picaresque device of the journey motif used as a vehicle for social satire" is so broad and general that— for example— 5Ibid., p. 12$ 201 James Joyce*s Ulysses could also be seen as a further f L development of the "picaresque formula." What critics such as Engel and Spector agree upon, of course, is the fact that Humphry Clinker is different from Smollett’s previous novels; the real question is whether it is different in kind, as Engel asserts, or different in degree, as Spector maintains. That question can perhaps best be answered by refusing to rely exclusively upon the somewhat nebulous term "picaresque," and by speaking instead of "technique" and "subject matter" in the sense in which those terms are used by Mark Schorer: When we speak of technique . . . we speak of nearly everything. For technique is the means by which the writer’s experience, which is his subject matter, com pels him to attend to it; technique is the only means he has of discovering, exploring, developing his subject, of conveying its meaning, and, finally, of evaluating it. And surely it follows that certain techniques are sharper tools than others, and will discover more; that the writer capable of the most exacting technical scrutiny of his subject matter will produce works with the most satisfying content, works with thickness and resonance, works which reverberate, works with maximum meaning.7 ^Spector identifies the other key element in Smollett’s "picaresque formula" as the use of "rhythmic de vices through which such things as character traits are both repeated and expanded upon" (Ibid., p. 129). What Spector pompously calls "rhythm in characterization" is nothing more or less than simple repetition used for purposes of charac ter development. Throughout his book, Spector’s use of the term "rhythm" is vague and confusing; one is forced to con clude that Spector’s "rhythm method" of analysis actually prevents a clear conception on the part of the reader of how Smollett uses repetition and of how he develops his charac ters. ^"Technique as Discovery" in Approaches to the Novel, ed. Robert Scholes (San Francisco: Chandler Publishing Company, 1961T, pp. 249-250._____________________ 202 Schorer's statements are particularly applicable to Humphry Clinker: the subject of Smollett's final novel is, as it was of Sir Launcelot Greaves, the good life in action— and, again Smollett's treatment of that subject here, as in Greaves, provides an analysis of the condition of England. The fact that the analysis is more complex, convincing, and satisfying in Clinker than it is in Greaves results from the fact that Smollett’s technique, his method of "discovering, exploring, developing his subject," is more complex and sophisticated in Clinker than it is in any of his previous novels. As far as technique is concerned, Humphry Clinker is indeed different in kind from any of Smollett’s previous novels, and this important fact enables Smollett to achieve a degree of "satisfying content," of "thickness and resonance," beyond his achievement in his previous novels. In discussing the technique Smollett employs in Humphry Clinker, it is necessary first of all to give some account of the genesis of that technique. As in the case of the period between the appearance of Count Fathom and the completion of Sir Launcelot Greaves, a long "fallow" period intervened between the completion of Greaves (1761) and the publication of Humphry Clinker (1771)*^ Again, it was not a period of inactivity for Smollett; his "monumental labors" ^For a concise account of the activities of Smollett during this second "fallow" period see Louis M. Knapp, Introduction to the Oxford edition of Humphry Clinker (London: Oxford University Press, 1966), pp. ix-xi• 203 as historian, journalist, compiler, etc., were continued throughout this ten-year period, and exactly in the middle of it Smollett published his famous travel-book, Travels Through France and Italy (1766). As we have seen in the previous chapter, Smollett,s first "fallow” period (1753- 6l) was a period during which an improvement in prose style and a "shift of interests" occurred, and this fact had a very definite and beneficial influence upon Sir Launcelot Greaves. Louis L. Martz has pointed out that the same process continued during Smollett*s second "fallow" period, and Martz asserts that "... Humphry Clinker is by no means an anomaly in Smollett’s career; it is a fulfillment of the new inspiration partially glimpsed in Sir Launcelot Greaves: it is an adaption to novel-form of the topical and historical interests which produced his Travels. . . ."^ Martz is very careful to point out, however, that the "fulfillment" he speaks of is not merely a matter of adapting topical and historical interests to the "novel form"; in an important chapter entitled "Imaginative Synthesis"’ *'® he discusses how Smollett’s art transforms the raw material provided by his new interests so that he may accomplish a literary rather than an expository purpose. Unfortunately, however, not all critics have been able to ^Later Career of Tobias Smollett (New Haven: Yale University Press', 1942), p. 1'5. -*-®Ibid.. Chapter VI, pp. 147-162. 204 see the fact that such a transformation takes place; many critics have viewed Humphry Clinker as primarily a "travel- book" or as a topical or historical nessayM rather than as a novel. x Robert A. Donovan describes this tendency as follows: The peculiar excellences of Humphry Clinker have generally been located . . . not in its imaginative structure, but in its qualities of observation and reflection. Readers most struck by the observation tend to place the book among the literature of travel; those most struck by the reflection prefer to regard it as in the nature of an essay. In either case the informing principle lies outside the book itself, either in the scenes which are being described or in the writer’s sensibility, revealed by his response to those scenes. Though it would be foolish to deny that Humphry Clinker does possess the qualities implied by these ways of approaching it, it is also possible . . . to read the book as a novel, to pursue, that is, the distinctively imaginative power which differentiates the work of fiction from all the possible modes of nonfiction.12 One important result of the failure to take proper account of the technique Smollett employs in Humphry Clinker has been the tendency to identify Smollett himself too closely with the fictional character Matthew Bramble in the novel. Generally, the same critics who view the narrator 1lHarri3on R. Steeves, for example, prefaces his discussion of Humphry Clinker with the following significant remark; 1 1 Humphry Clinker. if it is a novel. ...” (gmphasis liisl . Before Jane Austen (New York; Holt, Rine hart and Winston, 1965), p. 14#* Lionel Stevenson speaks of Smollett’s "expository padding" and "borrowing" as evidence that his "originality was running dry." The English Novel: A Panorama (Boston; Houghton Mifflin Company, I960), p. 144. 12The Shaping Vision (Ithaca, New York: Cornell University tress, 19o6J, pp. 11S-119. 205 of Smollett’s Travels as Smollett himself tend to see Matthew Bramble as merely a further extension of Smollett’s own "personality.” The reason for this is probably the fact that there are similarities between Smollett’s private personality and the personalities of the two characters; as Alan D. McKillop phrases it, ”In the Travels, though he (smollettQ takes much material from the guidebooks, the account is colored by his own reactions; and from his private letters . . . and from this travel narrative we can make out the origins of Matthew Bramble, the central char- 0 acter in Humphry C l i n k e r .”^ To conclude from this, however, that Humphry Clinker is merely thinly disguised autobiography, or that Smollett’s development as an artist was merely a matter of transplanting successful character types from one work to another, is patently absurd. John F. Sena makes the following comment concerning this issue; It is little wonder that the reader of Smollett criticism is left perplexed, for he is confronted with a confused series of antitheses. Smollett is both a profound and shallow thinker; a man of sentiment and a hardened realist; a benevolent humanitarian and a hateful misanthrope. The inability to distinguish between Smollett the man and the persona he created in his works is . . . largely responsible for the confused picture. If we accept the seemingly personal letters which compose the Travels Through France and Italy as Smollett’s own view of the Continent, we are' forced to conclude that Smollett is indeed a confirmed misanthrope and an insufferable hypochondriac. This, however, is to distort the character of the author and the credibility of the letters because in his Travels Smollett has 13Early Masters of English Fiction (Lawrence, Kans.; University of Kansas tress, 1956), p. 1^0. 206 created a persona which, although closely resembling the author, has an existence separate from and independ ent of its creator. Although the persona’s attitudes and personality, like Matthew Bramble’s in Humphry Clinker . . . may be similar to Smollett’s, the traveller should not be considered identical with Smollett. Rather the persona, like Bramble, is a con sciously created narrator who is used by Smollett as a vehicle for expressing a type of personality well-known in the eighteenth century. Smollett’s narrator would have been easily recognized by a contemporary reader as the type of splenetic or melancholic man found in numerous literary and medical works of the period. By consciously and artistically creating a persona that demonstrated medical attitudes and psychological reac tions typical of ’The English Malady,’ Smollett has reflected the collective experience of an age in his narrator.1^ Sena presents a well documented and convincing argument in support of his contention that ” ... the letters which compose the Travels . . . were not written while Smollett was travelling, nor were they written to specific individ uals," and that "from internal evidence it is clear that the Travels was not made up of genuine personal letters. Similarly, as George M. Kahrl has pointed out, there is even less reason to believe that Smollett "wrote his autobi ography in his delineation of Matthew Bramble."^ It is true that the opinions voiced by Bramble are often very similar to Smollett’s personal opinions— but it is also true that "the many models Smollett uses, himself included, are, 14»Smollett’s Persona and the Melancholic Traveller," Eighteenth-Century Studies. I (1967), 354-355* 15lbid.. p. 356. l^Tobias Smollett. Traveler-Novelist (Chicago: University of Chicago fress, 1945), P* 125. after all, transformed by art ."■*■? 207 The best recent discussion of the fictional tech nique Smollett employs in Humphry Clinker is that of Wolfgang Iser, who begins his argument by asserting that Smollett’s Humphry Clinker indicates a conspicuous transition in the eighteenth century to that form of narrative prose which had found its first visible out lines a good fifty years before in Defoe’s Robinson Crusoe, written in 1719* But the passing of this tradition of the novel, created by Defoe and culminating in Richardson and Fielding, should not be misconstrued as a exaustion of all its possibilities; in fact, the traditional forms of the novel, developed during the eighteenth century, undergo a definite transformation in Smollett’s last work, in which we can find both an adherence to tradition and a departure in new direc tions. . . . Smollett attempted a blend . . . by using the forms of the epistolary novel, the book of travels, and the picaresque novel— all of which were greatly favored in the eighteenth century.18 Iser then describes the effect of this "blend" by stating that .. . Humphry Clinker marks the point of intersection in the development of narrative prose. The interplay of the traditional forms in this novel is an indica tion that Smollett was concerned with meeting the most diverse expectations of his public. Yet the various novel forms, combined in Humphry Clinker, do begin to influence one another, thereby changing the traditional expectations of the eighteenth century reader.- * - 9 What Iser means when he speaks of a "blend" of three novel forms, and of the "changing expectations of the inspector, Tobias Smollett, p. 145* lSttThe Generic Control of the Aesthetic Response: An Examination of Smollett’s Humphry Clinker." Southern Humanities Review. Ill (196S), 245• 19Ibid., p. 245. 20$ eighteenth century reader" which this blend produces, can be explained as follows: the structure of Humphry Clinker is such that three separate but inter-related and inter dependent stories manage to get told in the course of the novel. There is, of course, the main "plot" of the novel— bhe story of the travels of the Bramble family throughout England and Scotland. This "plot" is revealed in the form of an epistolary narrative, and all five of the main letter- writing characters, Matt Bramble, Jery Melford, Lydia Melford, Tabitha Bramble, and Winifred Jenkins, contribute to the development of this "plot." It is Jery, however, who is primarily responsible for narrating the actual events of the story— and there is a very good reason for this: Jery’s principal function is manifestly to contribute facts and valuations about his traveling companions that they themselves cannot give us. The three women are so taken up with their own personal expectations that they can rarely spare a thought for anyone else, and Mr. Bramble’s point of view is so jaundiced by his bodily ills that it falls to Jery to provide the dis interested and impersonal commentary which will enable us to see the other characters in perspective. . . . Jery Melford assumes the narrative responsibility for most of the significant episodes of the novel, particu larly when they affect Mr. Bramble as central figure .... by giving us what is for all practical purposes an omniscient point of view, {Jer^j leads us to more or less objective judgment of the characters and events he tells us about.20 The second story or "plot" of the novel is a history of Matt Bramble’s opinions and observations— in effect, a travel-book. Most of his letters are devoted to subjective ^Donovan, The Shaping Vision, pp. 126-127. 209 evaluations of what he experiences and observes rather than, as in the case of Jery, to objective recording of the actual events of the story. One critic has pointed out that ’ ’ Much of Humphry Clinker is a bland statement of the subjectivity of human outlook, and, since it allows for the variations of prejudice and opinion, the book is all the more valid as a survey of England in the late eighteenth century, ”2- l - and another critic observes that "Mr. Bramble’s letters. . . . tend to be expository rather than narrative. . . .”22 Once again, however, it is Wolfgang Iser who gives the most perceptive and penetrating analysis of the "travel-book" aspects of Humphry Clinker: Even where the epistolary form had been imposed on the travel book form— as in Smollett’s Travels Through France and Italy— the accounts had remained authorita- tive because they were given by one traveller only. The possibility of differing impressions, however, is contrary to the purpose of the travel book: namely, to convey information about unknown places. . . . divergent impressions simply draw attention to the extent to which the same thing can look different to different people. And so Smollett’s presentation of the journey is not concerned with the things that are experienced, but with the way in which they are exper ienced. Thus the events reported take on a double meaning: first, they reveal the subjectivity that colours the perception of the individual . . . and second, they rouse a greater interest in the various possibilities of perception that are opened up to the reader’s imagination. What one person sees, another will miss; yet both seem to experience something that is characteristic of the situation. Here the revela tion is no longer one of factual information, but is 2-*Uonald Bruce, Radical Doctor Smollett (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1965J, p. 55 • 22Donovan, The Shaping Vision, p. 127. 210 concerned with the abundance of viewpoints contained in even the most trivial of situations, which will still have as many sides as there are observers. In the traditional travel book, the description of a locality helped to build up a complete factual picture of the relevant place or region, but in Smollett*s novel the accounts of towns and scenes are relieved of this function. If they are to be presented for their own sakes, they must be sufficiently interesting in their own right; and so they have to be considered from all angles; this in turn means that the reader must use his own imagination to bring about a coordination of the different aspects of reality.23 It should be noted at this point that one very important result of Smollett’s multiple-narrator technique and his blending of the epistolary novel-travel book forms is the fact that he is thus enabled to handle the theme of misanthropy and the "misanthropic satirist" in a very skilfull manner. Matt Bramble, in his role of satiric commentator on the various people and places encountered during the journey, reveals himself to be the true literary descendant of Cadwallader Crabtree in Peregrine Pickle and of Ferret in Sir Launcelot Greaves. As Ronald Paulson observes, "Each of his letters . . . is a self-contained satire, and together they produce a powerful cumulative effect . . . Bramble’s descriptions . . . are reminiscent of the satires of Juvenal, Swift, and Pope, in which a chaos is described as moving ever outward to engulf all that remains of value and order," but at the same time, "It is clear that Smollett was conscious of the implications of Bramble’s 23"The Generic Control of the Aesthetic Response," p. 250. 211 position. He balances the accuracy— or the truth— of Bramble*s satire against the sickness of the man."2^- Not only does Bramble*s own sickness help to balance the "accuracy" or "truth" of his satire, but also the context in which that satire is presented, the views and observations of the other characters— especially Jery, who is himself something of an Horatian2^ rather than a Juvenalian satirist— helps to modify and soften the harshness of Bramble’s views. Furthermore, the movement of the main plot of the novel itself is towards reconciliation and accept ance, and as the story progresses Bramble’s "satirical" outbursts become less frequent and less violent in nature. B. L. Reid has described the situation at the end of the novel as follows: The movement . . . in space has been roughly circular: the traveling party has returned, much changed, to its point of departure. But the spiritual movement has been resolutely straight ahead, on and out. . . . What has altered is not the place but the vision, not the known but the knower: one knows the place now because one knows the self better. . . . The action of the novel is best understood under a figure of winnowing— an airing and sifting and sorting and settling, which alters the state and relation of things. The action moves from negative to positive, from passive to active: sickness to health, constipation to purga tion, irritability to sensitivity, anonymity to ^ Satire and the Novel in Eighteenth-Century England (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1967), pp. 196- 197. 25These terms are used by Paulson, who says "In con trast to the Juvenalian spirit of Bramble, there xs the Horatian satire of his nephew Jery Melford. . . . while his uncle scourges, Jery lets folly speak for itself and con demn itself." Ibid., pp. 201-202. 212 identity, distance to intimacy, doubt-to trust, celibacy to marriage, ignorance to knowledge.26 The third important story or , , plot, , of Humphry Clinker involves the introduction of elements that can be labelled as "picaresque" into the novel. During the course of the journey, the Bramble family picks up two companions— Humphry Clinker, the titular "hero" of the novel, and Lt. Obadiah Lismahago, a retired army officer and native of Scotland. Robert Giddings observes that "Humphry Clinker could have been developed as a picaresque hero," and that "Lismahago is almost a grotesque protrait of the picaro in old age."2? Each of these characters is a man of "modest merit" who suffers, or has suffered, under severe economic and social hardships. B. L. Reid points out that "Like Humphry, Lismahago is drawn from his first introduction into the novel*s configuration of human loneliness, sickness, and need. He appears an incarnate decrepitude, but he manages stoutly his body wrecked by systematic torture," and that "To Matthew Bramble he forms an astonishing and instructive example of fortitude in adversity, of disenchantment without bitterness.Concerning Humphry Clinker’s function in the novel, Wolfgang Iser makes the following comment: 26iismollett*s Healing Journey," Virginia Quarterly Review. XLI (1964), 549-550. 2?The Tradition of Smollett, p. 14$. ^"Smollett’s Healing Journey," pp. 562-563. 213 Clinker does resemble the picaro in his behaviour, but he is in no way the cunning rascal that looks at the world from the standpoint of the outsider and joins all the merry tales together in his account. In the traditional picaresque novel, the picaro had the func tion of drawing a satirical picture of the world through the story of his life, but in Smollett this function is replaced by another. Instead of presenting the hero as looking back over his life, Clinker becomes real to us only insofar as he is seen by the other characters in the novel. Thus he inevitably loses that superiority which the cunning picaro always kept in the face of all adversity; in Smollett’s novel he is not even given the chance to express his own point of view, as he appears only in the views given of him by other people. Since Clinker never speaks for himself, he seems more helpless than all the others, but this only throws into relief the manner in which they behave towards him. Thus we see how inconsistent human rela tionships really are, and how strongly they are influenced by chance occurrences and trivialities. • , . The picaro Clinker mirrors the world insofar as he always appears a little different in the various letters about him,29 Reid and Iser are exactly right in what they say, but one other important point needs to be made concerning the function of Lismahago and Clinker in the novel and the significance of the fact that the technique employed by Smollett does not allow these characters to "speak for themselves." Since the subject of the novel is the good life in action, and since the members of the Bramble family are responsible for making the good life possible, and for controlling and directing it— since they, in short, have all the power and responsibility— it is most appropriate that the two outsiders have no direct voice in the analysis 29"The Generic Control of the Aesthetic Response," p. 252. 21k and examination of the possibilities for living the good life. The letters of Matt Bramble and Jery Melford, the two most powerful and responsible members of the family, con stitute about nine-tenths of the novel. Since these men are the most important and powerful family members, it is most appropriate that they should have the major responsibility in narrating. The letters of the three women, each of whom is much less powerful and responsible than either of the men, combine to make up the remaining one-tenth of the work. In effect, until the two outsiders acquire positions of power and responsibility within the Bramble family, they are entitled to no direct voice at all— and, ironically, it is only when they finally have acquired such positions that a full and complete measure of the good life becomes possible for the members of the Bramble family themselves. Some critics have been disturbed by the fact that the title of Smollett’s novel derives from the name of a "minor” charac ter, 30 but, as Sheridan Baker has pointed out, it is chiefly because of such "minor" characters as Lismahago and Humphry Clinker that "... the more serious expedition of Matthew Bramble is rewarded by romantic success at last— the wheels of life are joyously unclogged— and it takes its title, both playfully and meaningfully, from the burlesque 30james R. Poster, History of the Pre-Romantic Hovel in England (New York: Modern Language Association, 1949), p. 12B. 215 expedition of Humphry Clinker, the comic tail-baring knight 31 who almost isn’t there." We may conclude, then, that the technique Smollett employs in Humphry Clinker derives from a skilful combina- of three literary forms— the epistolary novel, the travel book, and the picaresque novel. And, to repeat Wolfgang Iser’s phrase, the various literary forms combined in Humphry Clinker "do begin to influence one another." In a well-reasoned essay entitled "Specific Continuous Forms," Northrup Frye identifies "four chief strands" in the history of fiction, the "novel, confession, anatomy, and romance," and Frye shows that most "novels" are actually combinations or "blends" of two or more of these "strands.Interest ingly enough, Smollett’s final novel can also be viewed from the point of view of Frye’s classifications. Matt Bramble’s letters contain elements of what Frye identifies as the "confession" and the "anatomy," and the stories of Humphry Clinker and Lismahago can be' seen as examples of what Frye labels the "romance." And, since no one of these three elements is allowed to grow out of proportion to the others and thereby to dominate the work, since they influence and modify each other, and since the effect of this influence 31"Humphrv Clinker as Comic Romance" in Essays on the Eighteenth-Century Movel. ed. Robert D. Spector (Bloom ington, Indiana: Indiana University Press, 1965), p. 164. 32Approaches to the Novel, ed. Robert Scholes, p. 51. 216 and modification is to create a complete and unified fictional "world" which interprets and evaluates the real world, Humphry Clinker is indeed a " n o v e l ."^3 Wolfgang Iser gives an excellent description of what Smollett accomplishes in Humphry Clinker; It is this interweaving of the three forms . . . and the discarding of their original basic functions which constitutes the originality of Humphry Clinker. Smollett takes over from Richardson the complex letter- form with several correspondents, but leaves out the self-examination leading to moral analysis which had been the central theme of the epistolary novel in the first half of the eighteenth century. He also takes over the travel book form as giving a panoramic view of a number of localities, but he no longer interprets this as a compendium of topographical information. Finally, he joins on the picaresque novel, but removes the satirical intention of the picaro*s adventures. All three forms on their own are characterized by the fact that they each give empirical reality a certain meaning. The epistolary novel of the Richardson school is only concerned with the everyday world insofar as it provides a means of testing the moral strength of the characters. The travel book demands an abundance of empirical details because they alone can bring about the necessary information. The picaresque novel has need of the empirical world so that it can set it up for satirical examination. In all of these forms empirical reality is limited by each specific intention. But Smollett brings them all together in his novel, removes the basic inten tion of each form, and so releases reality from its former restrictions. As a result, the reality presented by Smollett does not appear without order, but at the same time it does not serve to establish a preconceived meaning. The combination of the three forms transforms them into channels of perception through which reality is to be seen.34 33Frye lists verisimilitude, "rotundity of charac ter-drawing," and "naturalness of dialogue" as three elements which distinguish the "novel" from the other three major "strands" of fiction. Ibid., pp. 52-53* 34»The Generic Control of the Aesthetic Response," pp. 252-253* 217 Turning now to an examination of the subject matter of Humphry Clinker, we see that the technique Smollett employs in "discovering, exploring, developing his subject" is, indeed, in Mark Schorer*s words, "nearly everything." Unlike Sir Launcelot Greaves. Smollett*s final novel gets off to what is at first glance a very unpromising start; in the first sentence of this first letter^ to his corres pondent and physician, Dr. Lewis, Matthew Bramble complains that "The pills are good for nothing— I might as well swallow snow-balls to cool my reins— I have told you over and over how hard I am to move; and, at this time of day, I ought to know something of my own constitution. . . . I am as lame, and as much tortured in all my limbs, as if I was broke upon the wheel.Thus constipation is the first subject mentioned, and the general physical decay and unhappiness of Bramble is emphasized. Bramble*s opening letter continues in much the same vein: Indeed, I am equally distressed in mind and body— as if I had not plagues enough of my own, those children of my sister are left me for a perpetual source of vexation — what business have people to get children to plague their neighbours? A ridiculous incident that happened yesterday to my niece Liddy, has disordered me in such a manner, that I expect to be laid up with another fit of the gout— Perhaps I may explain myself in my next. 35The novel actually begins with an exchange of letters between Reverend Jonathan Dustwich and Henry Davis, a bookseller. This "frame" Smollett provides for his story is very important and its function will be examined below. The Works of Tobias Smollett, ed. G. H. Maynadier (12 vols.; New ^ork: The Athenaeum Society, 1902), XI, 5-6. 215 I shall set out tomorrow morning for the Hot Well at Bristol, where I am afraid I shall stay longer than I could wish.37 The first half of Bramble*s letter is devoted to listing his various complaints, both physical and emotional, but the second half consists of a series of directions to Lewis which clearly illustrate Bramble’s charity and benevolence; he reveals that he is charitable to the poor and is concerned about the welfare of his tenants: "Let Morgan’s widow have the Alderney cow, and forty shillings to clothe her children. But don’t say a syllable of the matter to any living soul."3^ When Jery Melford, the most objec tive and clear-headed of the characters, first mentions Bramble, his evaluation of Bramble’s character and person ality reinforces the impression given by Bramble’s letter itself: "My uncle is an odd kind of humorist, always on the fret, and . . . unpleasant in his manner. . . . Indeed, his being tortured by the gout may have soured his temper, and, perhaps, I may like him better on farther acquaintance Jery does "like him better" as he gets to know him, and the growth of understanding and spiritual kinship between the two men is one important way in which Smollett illustrates and develops the theme of the novel. One critic states this point as follows: It is . . . as in his earlier novels, the masculine world that interests Smollett, though masculinity here 37lbid.. XI, 6. 35lbid.. XI, 6. 39ibid.. XI, 10. 219 is a more complex . • • and interesting concept. The book is concerned, in fact, as much as with anything else, with what constitutes responsible, mature masculinity. The two men are the developing characters .... (the] rapproachement between uncle and nephew . . . is of the greatest importance. At the beginning the old man and the young man are completely out of sympathy. By the end, they are not only in complete sympathy, but we understand that Jery is to be Bramble’s intellectual and spiritual as well as financial h e i r .40 At the beginning of the novel neither Bramble nor Jery exhibits a full measure of "responsible, mature masculinity." Bramble’s bodily illness and his obligations to the members of his family have caused him to leave his country estate and to embark upon a journey that will, hopefully, help him improve his physical condition— and at the same time allow him to discharge his obligations to his family. A husband must be found for his old maid sister, Tabitha; his niece, Lydia, must be shielded from the advances of a "strolling player," Wilson, who has somehow managed to capture her affections; and, finally, Bramble needs to become better acquainted with his nephew, Jery Melford. As the novel begins, Bramble is in the process of attempting to accomplish all of these things— but his first letter makes it clear that he is not at all happy about the whole affair. Sheridan Baker points out that Bramble’s first letter is dated April 2, the day after "All-Fool’s 40Monroe Engel, Foreword to Signet Classics edition of Humphry Clinker: pp. vii-viii. 220 Day,"^ and it is clear that Bramble regards the journey he has undertaken as a "fool’s errand.” Jery’s letter indi cates, however, that although it may be a "fool’s errand,” Bramble is not merely a fool; there is more to his character than just gruffness and cynicism. The second half of Bramble’s own letter also indicates this. In the case of Jery’s letter, the reader gets the impression that its author is too detached and disinterested; he sees clearly enough, but there is little evidence of feeling or emotion in his letter. Thus Smollett establishes at the very beginning that, as far as objective evaluations of events and people are concerned, Jery is a dependable reporter; in Bramble’s case, emotion and prejudice are likely to color his evaluations, but as far as giving the correct moral reaction to a particular person or event is concerned, it is clear that Bramble is the dependable observer. As Ronald Paulson phrases it, ’ ’Bramble’s reactions to his environment are . . . immediate, startling, and emotional. . . . his travels record a search for health which is a search for moral standards in a chaotic world.”^2 It is true that Bramble’s vision is ’ ’distorted" in the sense that his emotional and moral reactions color what he sees, but, as ^"Humphry Clinker as Comic Romance," p. 161. Since Chaucer’s time, of course, April has been a good month for "pilgrimages" in English literature. ^2Satire and the Novel in Eighteenth-Century England. p. 1^5. 221 Hobert Hopkins points out, "the reality of Matthew*s gro tesque vision is a fact of the fictional context and is as disturbing to the reader as if the real world itself were indeed grotesque."43 Just as in Sir Launcelot Greaves it is only the supposedly "mad" Sir Launcelot who can see moral corruption, so in Humphry Clinker it is only the ailing and hypersensitive Matthew Bramble who can see such corruption; yet it is important to remember that Merely because Matthew is pathologically disturbed does not exclude the possibility that English society is itself pathological. . . . Extreme pessimism framed in a comic setting so that the pessimism is qualified, yet not one iota diminished, is the ultimate function of the grotesque in Humphry Clinker. . . . What dominates Humphry Clinker is Matthew’s early grotesque vision, even as Travels into Several Remote Nations of the World is dominated by Gulliver’s corrosive, Yahoo vision of mankind. Yet just as Gulliver’s vexing vision exists among a complexity of multiple points of view in a fictional context; so that Gulliver is both satirizer and satirized, Matthew Bramble’s vision operates in the same way in Humphry Clinker. Both Swift and Smollett recognized the value of self-parody, of self-awareness, of qualifying one’s satire by recognizing its limita tion in the perspective of time.44 Sandwiched between the first letters of Bramble and Jery are a letter by Tabitha Bramble and one by Winifred Jenkins. Tabitha’s letter reveals that she is extremely narrow-minded and self-centered; she has a monomaniacal fear that her possessions are not being properly cared for and protected back home at Brambleton Hall. The only other 43”The Function of Grotesque in Humphry Clinker." Huntington Library Quarterly. XXXII (1969), 170. 44lbid., pp. 175, 177. 222 creature besides herself that she is concerned for is Chowder, her dog, who— like Matthew Bramble— suffers from constipation. She requests that Chowder’s "lacksitiff" be sent to her immediately because "The poor creature has been terribly constuperated ever since we left huom.1 1 ^^ Tabitha is very much like Peregrine Pickle’s aunt, Grizzle, in that she is a frustrated old maid who sublimates her matrimonial disappointment through a very close concern for her ’ ’property." Tabitha comes alive, however, in a way that Grizzle Pickle never does because her weaknesses and foibles are revealed through what she herself says in her letters as well as through what other people describe and report. From the objective and detached point of view of Jery Melford, Tabitha "is a maiden of forty-five, exceedingly starched, vain, and ridiculous,"^* and Matthew Bramble latter evaluates her in emotional and personal terms by asserting that "I vow to God, she is sometimes so intoler able, that I almost think she’s the devil incarnate, come tc torment me for my sins. . • Each of these observations is valid from the point of view of the observer who makes it, and such comments have led some critics to conclude that Tabitha is merely an object for ridicule and laughter; Mary Wagoner, for example, asserts that A-5works. ed. Maynadier, XI, 7. * - 6Ibid., XI, 10. W Ibid.. XI, 15. 223 The prime target in Humphry Clinker for both situational satire and unsympathetic mirth from other characters is Mrs. Tabitha Bramble. . . . Tabby combines the vices of intemperate egoism, avarice, arrogance, and igno rance. Her ignorance and penury are firmly established in her scolding letters to her housekeeper and to Dr. Lewis, but Smollett fills the novel with rowdy farcial proofs of her shortcomings. . . . The point of the farce, significantly, is never the falsity of society1s standards but the antisocial quality of Tabby*s. Her peculiarities do not victimize society; she is inevitably foiled by her own unthinking, unabashed self-interest.**® This is an inaccurate assertion for society expects of Tabitha that she be married, and her man-chasing is per fectly understandable in that marriage is the only career open to her. Until Lismahago appears on the scene, each of her suitors is interested only in her fortune, and each one is actually more mercenary and selfish than she is. Even Lismahago is, of course, interested in her money— but by I marrying her he enables her finally to assume the only really acceptable role that exists for her. And, signifi cantly, Tabitha is genuinely fond of her brother; as Robert A. Donovan observes, f l what deepens and humanizes her . . . is the strength and genuineness of her affection for her brother, an affection usually concealed effectively by her single-minded pursuit of her own ends, but which occasion ally appears with a kind of majestic dignity at moments of tension. 4#»»0n the Satire in Humphry Clinker.1 1 Papers on Language and Literature. II (l§o6j, ll6. 49yhe Shaping Vision, p. 131. 224 Winifred’s letter to her fellow servant, Mary Jones, begins, T,Heaving this importunity, I send my love to you . . . ." and includes the delightful sentence "The doctor was sent for to Chowder, and he subscribed a repository."-*® Winifred is supposedly^1 a semi-literate Welsh servant girl, and her blunders in spelling and grammar provide a rich fund of humor in Humphry Clinker. However, she also serves another important purpose in that she gives a representative lower-class evaluation and interpretation of the various characters, events, and episodes in the novel. One of the major premises behind the social, economic, and political thinking of both Matthew Bramble and Jery Melford is the idea that servants should stay in their place because they are incapable of comprehending what is good for them, and because they tend to be unthinkingly selfish and 5®Works« ed. Maynadier, XI, 8, 5%. Arthur Boggs has pointed out that Smollett’s aim is not verisimilitude in Winifred’s letters: "... sober analysis . . . proves that certain of her linguistic variations are highly incompatible to other of her varia tions to the extent that no servant in the eighteenth century could ever have written in the manner which Smollett created for her. ... she uses words and pronunciations characteristic of several dialects— principally Welsh, London English, and Lowland Scotch— some of which are cer tainly not common to all three dialects. In short, in her letters Smollett created a gigantic, successful linguistic hoax." "Dialectal Ingenuity in Humphry Clinker." Papers on English Language and Literature. 1 (1965). 327. See also Boggs, "A Win Jenkins Lexicon," Bulletin of the New York Public Library. LXVIII (1963), 323-330, and Arthur Sherbo, "Win Jenkins’ Language," Papers on Language and Literature. V (1969), 199-204. 225 self-centered in their outlook on life. When Bramble raves and rails about the disappearance of order, decorum, and degree, the points he makes are rendered more meaningful and just because Winifred provides a clear example of why such order, decorum, and degree are necessary. At the same time it is clear that Winifred is not a "bad" person— she is merely incapable of being anything other than what she is. Her attempt to be something other than what she is provides the basis for the final ironic jest in the novel. It is not necessary to look any farther than these first four letters in order to comprehend the basic outlines of Smollett*s concept of the good life. Clearly, rural life on Bramble’s estate is to be preferred to life in crowded cities; Bramble’s apprehensions about the journey he has embarked upon demonstrate that only extraordinary circum stances (poor health and family obligations) could cause ham temporarily to abandon such a life and, metaphorically, descend into the "hell" represented by a place such as Hot Well. Jery’s motives for making the journey are partly satisfactory— he needs to see more of the world and to become better acquainted with his uncle— but at the same time it is clear that he is too detached and objective; he needs to develop the moral sense that is such a prominent part of his uncle’s character. As far as Tabitha and Wini fred are concerned, it is clear that they really do not 226 count• A world with either Tabitha or Winifred in control of things would be an insane world in which the good life would not be possible. The major question introduced in these first four letters is this: Why is Matthew Bramble sick, why is it that he is unable fully to live and to enjoy the good life at Brambleton Hall? Before the journey is over, Bramble discovers the answer to this question— and what he discovers and how he discovers it is, in fact, the theme of Humphry Clinker. Smollett’s technique in the novel demonstrates that what one sees in life is primarily a matter of what one looks for, and of how one looks, and this fact is what finally becomes clear to Bramble. The good life is a life in which those who can see most clearly are in firm control over those who will not or cannot see clearly, and Humphry Clinker is, in effect, a record of how both Matthew Bramble and Jery sharpen and refine their ability to see clearly and accurately. But from the very beginning each man can already see more clearly and accu rately than anyone else, and Humphry Clinker is therefore a study of the good life in action. In the process of striving for the good life, Bramble and Jery live the good life; in other words, the good life is defined in terms of a process, a development, rather than in terms of the attain ment of an abstract goal or ideal. It is for this reason that M. A. Goldberg’s description of Humphry Clinker as a record of how an "ideal" of "rural felicity" is achieved is 227 not completely satisfactory: Rural felicity, the ideal toward which each of the characters in Humphry Clinker seems to be striving by the close of the novel, embodies a way of life, as far removed from the "primitivism” discerned in the Scottish Highlands as from the "progress” encountered at Bath and London* It appears rather to encompass the virtues of both and the vices of neither: wealth without ostenta tion, simplicity without poverty. Indeed, this bucolic existence, anticipating a congruity of basic opposi tions, is not too remote from the way of life which Roderick anticipates with Narcissa, Peregrine with Emilia, Renaldo with Monimia, and Launcelot with Aurelia. Like the culmination of each of Smollett*s novels, . . . Humphry Clinker closes within sight of happiness, that great concern of the eighteenth cen tury. 52 A much more accurate and revealing description of the central issue in Humphry Clinker is that of David L. Evans, who asserts that With the exception of Smollett’s own Launcelot Greaves, in no other major eighteenth century novel does a character who represents the values and ideals of the landed gentry and commitment to conservative order, decorum, sense and subordination associated with Augustanism serve as central satiric persona. Matthew Bramble, like Smollett’s other satirists, is ’dis located’ from the society in which he moves; he can satirize what he sees because of his removal, but he is dislocated from society more because of the ideals he represents than because he is physically sick. In a genuine sense, as far as the novel’s structure and development are concerned, Bramble’s hypochondria and illness are emblems of flaws in his values and ideals. In the course of the novel Bramble achieves health and harmony, but the central fact in the search for good health is its psychosomatic nature. Physical health returns with the return of a genuine and morally healthier version of the rural-Augustan ideal to which Bramble is committed. . . . In Humphry Clinker the original society is the society of Brambleton Hall as revealed mainly in the observation and criticism of 52Smollett and the Scottish School (Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1959)# p. 132. 22 a Matthew Bramble. At the end, however, there is not a new society created but a dedication on the part of the central character to a more vital and admirable version of the society cherished throughout.53 The first four letters in Humphry Clinker can be seen as a prelude or introduction to the first major episode of the novel. It is convenient to view Humphry Clinker in terms of five major episodes: (l) an examination of the health resorts of Hot Well and Bath; (2) an examination of London life; (3) the journey North to Scotland; (4) an examination of life in Scotland; and (5) a re-examination of life in England— specifically, rural life in Northern England.^ Each episode is significant in itself, and each leads logically and necessarily to the one which follows it; each episode shows the good life in action, and at the same time shows how a significant aspect of the good life is re-examined, re-defined, and re-evaluated so that the cumu lative effect of the five episodes is that they provide the basis for what Evans calls "a dedication • • . to a more vital and admirable version of the society cherished throughout." Matthew Bramble’s health is the major topic in the 53» t Humphry Clinker: Smollett’s Tempered Augus tan! sm," Criticism. IX (1967). 255-259. 54For a detailed study of the structure and organi zation of Humphry Clinker see Scott Garrow, "A Study of the Organization of Smollett’s The Expedition of Humphry Clinker," Southern Quarterly. IV (1965;. 349-364; V (1966), 22-46. 229 first episode of the novel. When the family arrives at Hot Well, Bramble quickly learns that his apprehensions about the place were well founded; his first letter from Hot Well informs Dr. Lewis that I have read all that has been written on the Hot Wells, and what I can collect from the whole is, that the water contains nothing but a little salt and calcareous earth, mixed in such inconsiderable proportion, as can have very little, if any, effect on the animal economy. This being the case, I think the man deserves to be fitted with a cap and bells, who, for such a paltry advantage as this spring affords, sacrifices his precious time, which might be employed in taking more effectual remedies, and exposes himself to the dirt, the stench, the chilling blasts, and perpetual rains, that render this place to me intolerable.55 Bramble then informs Lewis that a physician at Hot Well has diagnosed Bramble*s condition as "dropsy,1 * and indicates that he strongly disagrees with the diagnosis; the reasoning behind Bramble’s disagreement is revealed when he says: Between friends, I think every man of tolerable parts ought, at my time of day, to be both physician and lawyer, as far as his own constitution and property are concerned. For my own part, I have had an hospital these fourteen years within myself, and studied my own case with the most painful attention; consequently may be supposed to know something of the matter, although I have not taken regular courses of physiology, etc., etc. In short, I have for some time been of opinion (no offence, dear doctor), that the sum of all your medical discoveries amountsAto this, that the more you study, the less you know.5o 55wprks. ed. Maynadier, XI, 33* ^Ibid., XI, 33. Several of Smollett’s personal letters also reflect great scepticism concerning the efficacy of medical attention; one of the last letters Smollett wrote was to his friend Dr. John Hunter, and was dated January 9, 1771— only a few months before the publica tion of Humphry Clinker, and less than a year before 230 Just as David L. Evans points out that "Bramble*s hypochondria and illness are emblems of flaws in his values and ideals," and that "the central fact in the search for health is its psychosomatic nature," so William A. West argues that At the beginning of Humphry Clinker . . . Matt is con cerned to cure his bodily ills by specifically physical remedies— such as medicines and proper food and drink. But in the course of his journey he discovers a path of good health . . . discovering, in the process, the central importance of the mind and mental habits to good health. He employs . . . activity, temperance, and peace of mind against those causes of chronic disease . . . indolence, intemperance, and vexation. Matt may be said to commence . . . jhisj regimen unwittingly when he leaves his country estate to begin his tour. We do not know, from references early in the letters of the travelers, what Matt*s life has been before journeying forth; but it is clear from what he himself later writes that he considers his habits to have been too sedentary, that he has, in fact, been guilty of . . . ’indolence.* Brambleton-hall, his starting place and the estate to which he will return, comes eventually to seem the seat of inactivity.57 G. S. Rousseau points out that Bramble’s attitudes are very similar to Smollett’s personal attitudes as far as medical Smollett’s own death. He speaks of his own physical con dition with grim humor and implies that he has abandoned all hope that his various ailments can be successfully treated or "cured"; "With respect to myself, I have nothing to say, but that if I can prevail upon my wife to execute my last will, you shall receive my poor carcase in a box, after I am dead, to be placed among your rarities. I am already so dry and emaciated, that I may pass for an Egyptian mummy, without any other preparation than some pitch and painted linen; unless you think I may deserve the denomination of a curiosity in my own character. ..." The Letters of Tobias Smollett, ed. Edward S. Noyes (Cambridge; Harvard University Press, 1926), pp. 10S-109. 57"Matt Bramble’s Journey to Health," Texas Studies in Literature and Language. XI (1969), 1203. 231 theory is concerned: Views expressed by the character Matt Bramble in Humphry Clinker reflect in brief three basic attitudes concerning medicine which Smollett entertained through out his medical career: (1) the value of careful observation, (2) the necessity of full knowledge, and (3) a persisting skepticism. As an invalid, Smollett, like Bramble, had observed his own ailments and nursed himself for twenty years; in so doing, he kept abreast of contemporary medicine . . . and, although a doctor himself, he was strongly skeptical of doctors who were quick to prescribe panaceas.58 Rousseau then points out that this extensive knowledge on Smollett,s part is what enables him to provide "medical satire of the finest sort": This combination of almost clinical self-observation, learning, and skepticism is blended in Matt Bramble in such a way as to produce medical satire of the finest sort. Smollett’s satire is always built upon a founda tion of extensive learning, and if Matt Bramble pokes fun at notable contemporary physicians, it is because his creator previously had spent much time weighing the pros and cons of the medical theory of each doctor. And if Matt appears to be unusually aware of the names and remedies of countless maladies of the time, we may be certain that his author is using him as a mouthpiece to display his own extensive medical learning.59 It is true that "medical satire of the finest sort" is presented in this first episode, and the use of Bramble as a "mouthpiece" is one important way in which that satire is presented. However, Bramble’s experience with a 58»>Matt Bramble and the Sulphur Controversy in the XVIIIth Century." Journal of the Historv of Ideas. XXVIII (1967), 577. --------- 59Ibid., p. 577. 232 ridiculous "doctor"^® at Hot Well are narrated by Jery rather than by Matt himself. Smollett’s technique is such that it allows him to present both a subjective evaluation of the ridiculous "doctor" and an objective account of what the "doctor" actually does and says. Jery describes the incident as follows: I was t’other day much diverted with aconversation that passed in the pump-room, betwixt him /Brambie] and the famous Dr. L— n, who is come to ply at the well for patients. My uncle was complaining of the stink, occasioned by the vast quantity of mud and slime, which the river leaves at low ebb under the windows of the pump-room. He observed, that the exhalations arising from such a nuisance could not but be prejudicial to the weak lungs of many consumptive patients who came to drink the water. The doctor, overhearing this remark, made up to him, and assured him he was mistaken. He said, people in general were so misled by vulgar preju- dicies, that philosophy was hardly sufficient to undeceive them. Then, hemming thrice, he assumed a most ridiculous solemnity of aspect, and entered into a learned investigation of the nature of stink.61 The main point of this "learned investigation" is that excrement does not stink and that dirt is not dirty; Jery remarks that, "In short, he used many learned arguments to persuade his audience out of their senses; and from stench made a transition to filth, which he affirmed was also a mistaken idea. • . .^2 Once this ridiculous "doctor" is 60Lewis M. Knapp identifies this "doctor" as Diederick Linden, an alchemist and quack, whose works on mineralogy and medicinal waters were published in the 1750’s and 1760’s. Oxford edition of Humphry Clinker, p. 355• See also Rousseau, "Matt Bramble and tne Sulphur Controversy," pp. 576-569. 6%orks. ed. Maynadier, XI, 23. ^2Ibid.. XI, 25 233 properly exposed and ridiculed by Bramble and Jery, Jery remarks: "I was much pleased with meeting the original of a character which you and I have often laughed at in descrip tion; and, what surprises me very much, I find the features in the picture which has been drawn for him rather softened than overcharged."^ Bramble takes the whole matter more seriously, but he also condemns him: I know not what to make of him; sometimes he makes shrewd remarks, at other times he talks like the greatest simpleton in nature. He has read a great deal, but without method or judgment, and digested nothing. He believes everything he has read, especially if it has anything of the marvellous in it; and his conver sation is a surprising hotch-potch of erudition and extravagance. . . . I wish those impertinent fellows, with their rickety understandings, would keep their advice for those who ask it— Dropsy, indeed! Sure I have not lived to the age of fifty-five, and had such experience of my own disorder, and consulted you and other eminent physicians, so often and so long, to be undeceived by such a ----. But, without all doubt, the man is mad, and therefore what he says is of no con sequence. . . . From such doctors, good Lord deliver ust64 It is clear that Bramble is uneasy about the "doctor*s" diagnosis even though he can see how foolish a figure the doctor really is, and can see, from the point of view of his own reason and experience, how inaccurate and uninformed the diagnosis is. Bramble*s reason and judgment are sound enough, but his emotional anxiety concerning his own illness to some extent colors and warps his outlook on life.^5 63lbid.. XI, 2d. 64lbid.. XI, 34-35. 65()ne is reminded of Boswell*s famous description of Dr. Johnson*s fear of death: "... his thoughts . .. 234 Jery, however, has no such difficulty, and when Jery squeezes the nose of the ridiculous "doctor,” we are informed, significantly, that "... my uncle, • . • burst out a laughing, for the first time since I have been with him. . • .”66 If Jery causes Matthew to laugh, however, Matthew also causes Jery to cry; shortly after the episode of the ridiculous "doctor," Jery spies upon his uncle when he suspects that Bramble plans to seduce a poor widow whom he has invited to visit him in his apartment. To his astonishment, however, Jery learns that Bramble merely wants to give the unfortunate woman twenty pounds; when Jery witnesses this act of charity, he actually cries: "... [i was] so affected by the scene, that the tears rein down my cheeks.When Tabitha Bramble breaks in upon the scene and ridicules her brother for his act of charity, Jery reacts as follows: In short, I quitted the room, my contempt for her, and my respect for her brother being increased in the same proportion. I have since been informed, that the person whom my uncle so generously relieved, is the widow of an ensign, who has nothing to depend upon but the pension of fifteen pounds a year. The people of (on deatK] were in general full of dismal apprehensions. His mind resembled the vast arapitheatre, the Coliseum at Rome. In the centre stood his judgment, which, like a mighty gladiator, combated those apprehensions that, like the wild beasts of the Arena, were all around in cells, ready to be let out upon him. After a conflict, he drove them back into their dens; but not killing them, they were still assailing him." The Life of Samuel Johnson (London: Oxford University Press, 1953), P« 42?. 66works, ed. Maynadier, XI, 27. 67lbid.. XI, 31 235 the well-house give her an excellent character. She lodges in a garret, and works very hard at plain work, to support her daughter, who is dying of a consumption. I must own, to my shame, I feel a strong inclination to follow my uncle’s example, in relieving this poor widow; but, betwixt friends, I am afraid of being detected in a weakness that might.entail the ridicule of the com pany upon (me] . . . .&e Naturally, Bramble himself never mentions this episode. The final letter from Hot Well is written by Jery’s sister, Lydia, and the effect of it is to ameliorate the harsh views and observations given by Matt and Jery. To Lydia, Hot Well is a beautiful and romantic place: We set out for Bath to-morrow, and I am almost sorry for it, as I begin to be in love with solitude, and this is a charming romantic place. The air is so pure, the Downs are agreeable, the furze in full blossom, the ground enamelled with daisies, and primroses, and cow slips; all the trees bursting into leaves, and the hedges already clothed with their vernal livery; the mountains covered with flocks of sheep, and tender bleating wanton lambkins playing, frisking, and skipping from side to side; the groves resound with the notes of the blackbird, thrush, and linnet. . . . the ships and boats going up and down the river, close under the windows of the pump-room, afford such an enchanting variety of moving pictures, as require a much abler pen than mine to describe.°9 It is clear that the "truth" about Hot Well is something in the nature of a combination of the views of Matthew, Jery, and Lydia— with, of course, the views of Matthew and Jery predominant. Smollett’s attack upon the uncleanliness of Hot Well and upon ridiculous and pendantic figures such as the "doctor" is no less effective than attacks upon similar conditions and persons in his previous novels, but his Ibid., XI, 32. 69lbid., XI, 3$ 236 technique allows him to present the attack in a more balanced, sophisticated, and controlled manner, Alan D. McKillop remarks: The world of Clinker is still Smollett’s world, a jungle in which amazing fauna are to be found, a region of endless absurdities, but there is no longer so much talk about fierce indignation. There is a general parallel with Sterne here: while the great world may rage without, the obliquities of these originals are harmless, and manifest themselves in a well-grounded order of things. Bramble and Jery as chief reporters exercise a degree of humane control over the whole spectacle.70 In their first letters from Bath, both Matthew and Jery show that they have made significant progress in their ability to see clearly and accurately. Jery is beginning to understand and to appreciate his uncle— and to be influenced by him— and Matthew reveals that he is acquiring a more balanced and perceptive attitude toward his own "illness.” Jery reveals at the beginning of his letter that a certain Miss Blackerby has accused him of fathering her child and, although he proclaims his innocence, he directs his corres pondent, Sir Watkin Phillips, to "compound with the parish" because he has decided to "pay the penalty without repin ing." He states his reason for this as follows: On this occasion I act by the advice of my uncle, who says I shall have good luck if I pass through life without being obliged to make many more compositions of the same kind. The old gentleman told me last night, with great good humour, that, betwixt the age of twenty and forty, he had been obliged to provide for nine bastards, sworn to him by women whom he never saw. 70Early Masters of English Fiction, pp. 174-175 237 Mr. Bramble’s character . . . opens and improves upon me every day. His singularities afford a rich mine of entertainment; his understanding, so far as I can judge, is well cultivated; his observations on life are equally just, pertinent, and uncommon. He affects misanthropy, in order to conceal the sensibility of a heart which is tender even to a degree of weakness.71 Bramble’s letter shows that he is well on his way to making what William A. West calls "... the important dis covery . • . that his physical ailments . . . have a way of taking care of themselves when he is mentally at his ease .... [becaus0 the body . . . is dependent for its health on the well-being of the mind."?2 Bramble begins his letter to Dr. Lewis by stating that If I did not know that the exercise of your profession has habituated you to the hearing of complaints, I should make a conscience of troubling you with my correspondence, which may be truly called the lamenta tions of Matthew Bramble. Yet I cannot help thinking I have some right to discharge the overflowings of my spleen upon you, whose province it is to remove those disorders that occasioned it; and let me tell you, it is no small alleviation of my grievances, that I have a sensible friend, to whom I can communicate my crusty humours, which by retention, would grow intollerably acrimonious. 73 Unfortunately for Bramble, Bath does not turn out to be the sort of place where peace of mind is possible; he finds it to be an even more hideous and appalling place than was Hot Well. He describes it as follows; orks. ed. Maynadier, XI, 40* 72|,Matt Bramble’s Journey to Health,” p. 1205. ^Works, ed. Maynadier, XI, 4^-49• 238 . . . I believe, you will not deny that this place, which nature and providence seem to have intended as a resource from distemper and disquiet, is become the very centre of racket and dissipation. Instead of that peace, tranquility, and ease, so necessary to those who labour under bad health, weak nerves, and irregular spirits; here we have nothing but noise, tumult, and hurry. . . . A national hospital it may be; but one would imagine, that none but lunatics are admitted; and, truly, I will give you leave to call me so, if I stay much longer at Bath.74 It is significant that Bramble makes a distinction between what "providence intended" and what man has accomplished. Bramble criticizes the architecture and the sanitary facil ities (or lack of them) in detail; he emphasizes the idea that man is the culprit rather than nature. The whole point of Bramble’s attack is that conditions do not have to be as horrible as they are. Jeffrey L. Duncan points out that Whereas Fielding uses physical environment simply as a setting for social and moral order, Smollett concerns himself to a great extent with the order of the physical environment, not with nature as such, but with the application of reason to the control of nature for the benefit of man. . . . Smollett reveals a historical, sociological, and even an ecological interest in the relationship of man and physical environment. . . . It is moreover his belief in man’s ability and duty to order and control nature for the common good that accounts for his disgusting, indignant particularity in describing Hot Wells, Bath, and London.75 Duncan’s use of the term "disgusting" is certainly appropriate in the sense that Bramble :Ls very particular in pointing out what he considers to be shocking examples of 74Ibid.. XI, 49. 75i»The Rural Ideal in Eighteenth-Century Fiction,” Studies in English Literature. VIII (196S), 521. 239 disorder, uncleanliness, and corruption. However, Smollett*s technique does to some extent modify and soften the stark and bitter picture which Bramble draws; to Lydia and Winifred, Bath is an exciting and beautiful new world. 7ft "All is gaiety, good-humour, and diversion," writes Lydia, and Winifred exclaims that "... you who live in the country have no deception of our doings at Bath. Here is such dressing, fiddling and dancing, and gadding, and courting, and plotting— 0 gracioust"^ To Jery, Bath is merely a place where he can have fresh opportunities for "entertainment and variety," and can enjoy "a source of infinite amusement": I think those people are unreasonable, who complain that Bath is a contracted circle, in which the same dull scenes perpetually revolve, without variation. — I am, on the contrary, amazed to find so small a place so crowded with entertainment and variety. . . . Here, for example, a man has daily opportunities of seeing the most remarkable characters of the community. He sees them in their natural attitudes and true colors, descended from their pedestals, and divested of their formal draperies, undisguised by art and affectation. — Here we have ministers of state, judges, generals, bishops, projectors, philosophers, wits, poets, players, chemists, fiddlers, and buffoons. . . . Another enter tainment, peculiar to Bath, arises from the general mixture of all degrees assembled in our public rooms, without distinction of rank or fortune. This is what my uncle reprobates as a monstrous jumble of heteroge neous principles; a vile mob of noise and impertinence, without decency and subordination. But this chaos is to me a source of infinite amusement.7© Jery is again correct in his analysis of what Bramble 76Works. ed. Maynadier, XI, 57. 77ibid.. XI, 63. 76ibid.. XI, 71-72 240 considers to be the cause of all the horrors he finds at Bath: All these absurdities arise from the general tide of luxury, which hath overspread the nation, and swept away all, even the very dregs of the people. Every upstart of fortune, harnessed in the trappings of the mode, presents himself at Bath, as in the very focus of observation. . . . men of low birth, and no breeding, have found themselves suddenly translated into a state of affluence, unknown to former ages; and no wonder that their brains should be intoxicated with pride, vanity, and presumption. . . . Such is the composition of what is called the fashionable company at Bath; where a very inconsiderable proportion of genteel people are lost in a mob of impudent plebeians who have neither understanding nor judgment, nor the least idea of pro priety and decorum; and seem to enjoy nothing so much as an opportunity of insulting their betters.79 But again the harshness of Bramble’s views is modified by Jery’s very penetrating analysis of his uncle’s character and personality: Those follies that move my uncle’s spleen excite my laughter. He is as tender as a man without a skin, who cannot bear the slightest touch without flinching. What tickles another would give him torment; and yet he has what we may call lucid intervals, when he is remarkably facetious.— Indeed, I never knew a hypo chondriac so apt to be infected with good-humour. He is the most risable misanthrope I ever met with. A lucky joke, or any ludicrous incident, will set him a laughing immoderately, even in one of his most gloomy paroxysms; and, when the laugh is over, he will curse his own imbecility. In conversing with strangers, he betrays no marks of disquiet— he is splenetic with his familiars only; and not even with them, while they keep his attention employed; but when his spirits are not exerted externally, they seem to recoil, and prey upon himself.— He has renounced the waters with execration; but he begins to find a more efficacious, and, cer tainly, a much more palatable remedy, in the pleasures of society. He has discovered some old friends among the invalids of Bath. . . .80 79ibid., XI, 53-54. 8°Ibid.. XI, 73-74. 241 Bramble certainly enjoys his meeting with these old friends who, like him, are victims of illness, old age, and recurring despair; we may assume that he sees something of himself in each of them: The spirits and good-humour of the company seemed to triumph over the wreck of their constitutions. They had even philosophy enough to joke upon their own calamities; such is the power of friendship, the sovereign cordial of life. I afterwards found, however, that they were not without their moments and even hours of disquiet. Each of them apart, in succeeding con ferences, expatiated upon his own particular grievances; and they were all malcontents at bottom.8! Clearly, then, the various incidents and experiences at Bath are good for both Jery and Matthew. Each man is moving steadily toward "responsible, mature masculinity." Smollett’s technique is such that this movement is presented in a very natural and ion-obtrusive manner, and the fact that such movement is taking place renders Bramble’s satirical attacks upon the folly, filth, and corruption he sees all around him less harsh and offensive than they might other wise be. B. L. Reid describes the "spiritual progress" of the novel as follows: Jery’s maturity advances step by step with his appre ciation of his uncle’s character. . . . Matthew Bramble’s character itself is ’improving’ with improved health, as his imposing inner richness finds freedom to express itself in speech and action; and Jery’s improv ing ability to feel and to value the prickly beauty of his uncle’s nature measures the enriching of his own spirit. Both processes are parts^of the spiritual progress of the Expedition. . . ,82 ^Ibid., XI, 83-84. ^2"Smollett’s Healing Journey," pp. 553-554* 242 The climax of the first episode of the novel comes when Matthew Bramble faints at a ball at Bath. The cause of his fainting is nothing less than the stench of the crowd, and Smollett very carefully prepares the reader for Bramble^ involuntary evaluation of "polite society" at Bath; several days before the day upon which Bramble faints, the romantic and enthusiastic Lydia writes to her corres pondent, Miss Willis, that . . . the great scenes of entertainment at Bath are the two public rooms, where the company meet alternately every evening.— They are spacious, lofty, and, when lighted up, appear very striking. They are generally crowded with well-dressed people. . . . Twice a week there is a ball. . . . I was there Friday last with my aunt, under the care of my brother. . . . The place was so hot, and the smell so different from what we are used to in the country, that I was quite feverish when we came away. Aunt says it is the effect of a vulgar con stitution, reared among woods and mountains; and that, as I become more accustomed to genteel company, it will wear off.°3 Bramble has, of course, "become more accustomed to genteel company," but he describes the cause of his fainting as follows: It was indeed a compound of villanous smells, in which the most violent stinks and the most powerful perfumes contended for the mastery. Imagine to yourself a high exalted essence of mingled odours arising from putrid gums, imposthumated lungs, sour flatulencies, rank arm-pits, sweating feet, running sores and issues; plasters, ointments, and embrocations, Hungary water, spirit of lavender, assafoetida drops, musk, hartshorn, and sal volatile; besides a thousand frowsy steams which I could not analyse. Such . . . is the fragrant ether we breathe in the polite assemblies of Bath; such ^Works, ed Maynadier, XI, 61 243 is the atmosphere I have exchanged for the pure- elastic, animating air of the Welsh mountains.®4 It is left to Jery, of course, to give a more objective account of the fainting episode, but— significantly— he does not deny that the stench really existed— he is merely thankful that it did not offend him as it did his uncle: A few days ago we were terribly alarmed by my uncled fainting at a ball. . . . He declares he will sooner visit a house infected with the plague, than trust himself in such a nauseous spital for the future, for he swears the accident was occasioned by the stench of the crowd; and that he would never desire a stronger proof of our being made of very gross materials, than our having withstood the annoyance by which he was so much discomposed. For my part, I am very thankful for ^Ibid.. XI, 93-99* One is reminded here of the catalogue of horrors Gulliver provides for his "Master” when the latter questions the ability of the European "Yahoos" to accomplish the acts of savagery and brutality which are characteristic of warfare: "I could not forbear shaking my Head and smiling a little at his Ignorance. And, being no Stranger to the Art of War, I gave him a Description of Cannons, Culverins, Muskets, Carabines, Pistols, Bullets, Powder, Swords, Bayonets, Sieges, Retreats, Attacks, Under mines, Countermines, Bombardments, Sea-fights; Ships sunk |with a Thousand Men; twenty Thousand killed on each Side; jdying Groans, Limbs flying in the Air: Smoak, Noise, Confusion, trampling to Death under Horses Feet: Flight, Pursuit, Victory; Fields strewed with Carcases left for Food to Dogs, and Wolves, and Birds of Prey; Plundering, Stripping, Ravishing, and Destroying." It would also seem that the conclusion the "Master" reaches concerning the European "Yahoos" could be applied equally well to anyone who does not react as Bramble does when he is aware of the "compound of villanous smells" at the ball: "He seemed therefore confident, that instead of Reason, we were only possessed of some Quality fited to increase our natural Vices; as the Reflection from a troubled Stream returns the image of an ill-shapen Body, not only larger- but more dis torted." Jonathan Swift: A Selection of His Works, ed. PKilip Pinkus (New York: The Odyssey Press, 1965), pp. 237- 23S. 244 the coarseness of my organs, being in no danger of ever falling a sacrifice to the delicacy of my nose.®5 The second major episode of the novel provides an examination of London life, and social and political theory are the topics which dominate the episode, Bramblefs decision to visit London is first presented as an unselfish one— "You must know, that now being afoot, I am resolved to give Liddy a glimpse of London. She is one of the best- hearted creatures I ever knew, and gains upon my affections every day."^ B. L. Reid sees the decision as further evidence of spiritual progress: "The healthy turning out ward of his nature, which began with his forbearing interest in his young wards and has continued in his affection for several old cronies found resurrected at Bath, takes grand form in his resolution to extend the Expedition. • . ."®? Bramble himself asserts that only his concern for others could cause him to extend the journey: I have promised, in an evil hour, to proceed to London, and that promise shall be performed; but my stay in the metropolis shall be brief. I have . . . projected an expedition to the north, which I hope will afford some agreeable pastime. I have never travelled farther that way than Scarborough, and I think it is a reproach upon me, as a British freeholder, to have lived so long without making an excursion to the other side of the Tweed; besides, I have some relations settled in Yorkshire, to whom it may.not be improper to introduce my nephew and his sister.®® ®5works, ed. Maynadier, XI, 100. ®^Ibid.. XI, Si, ^"Smollett’s Healing Journey," p. 556. ^%orks. ed. Maynadier, XI, 99. 245 It is on the road from Bath to London that the family encounters Humphry Clinker; the coach in which the family is riding is upset, and in the ensuing confusion Chowder, Tabitha*s dog, bites both Matt Bramble and John Thomas, Bramble*s servant. Thomas is enraged and wants to kill the dog, and this leads to a heated exchange between Thomas and Tabitha Bramble; Jery informs us that ’ ’Thomas continued obstinate. . . . and the squire dismissed him from his service, after having prevented me from giving him go a good horsewhipping for his insolence.” Clearly, Bramble is very fair in this; Thomas does have a legitimate com plaint, but he cannot be allowed to remain with the family if he refuses to compromise and if he ’ ’continues obstinate." Nevertheless, Bramble now needs a new servant, and Humphry Clinker just happens to be available. Sheridan Baker com ments that . . . exactly where the Bath material runs out, a quarter of the way through, Smollett’s invention turns up Humphry Clinker, the tattered foundling with battered chivalric name and extraordinarily white skin. What better way to put socks on romance— once Clinker had mounted his coach horse— than to let him also mount the title, an almost non-existent nonhero in mock romantic prominence? There can be little doubt where Smollett got the idea. Tristram Shandy, with its most tardy and tangential hero, had recently preempted the literary field. . • Humphry is indeed a tardy "hero”— but he is not tangential; William Park comments: g9Ibid.. XI, 121. ________90l,Humphrv Clinker as Comic Romance," p. 1$6. 246 Not only does Humphry Clinker partake of an archetypal plot in which the protagonists journey from a ’mad world* of folly and knavery into a *green* one of fertility and joy, but also its particular matter con sists of overt and latent quests which both unify and shape the story. Consciously Bramble has set out to regain his health; consciously Taby, Lydia, and Win look for husbands and are in turn sought after. But latent in this novel is still a third quest— that of son for father and father for son. Though to be sure, neither Bramble nor Clinker are looking for relatives, their discovery of one another immediately precedes the union of Lydia and Dennison, and as it turns out, the health which Bramble yearns for and, indeed, his life itself depends upon Clinker. By the climax of the novel then, this unconscious or latent quest has humorously and sentimentally been brought to the surface and inextricably bound up with the fulfillment of all the desires of the family.°1 Park’s evaluation is hardly an overstatement; from his very first appearance Humphry plays a very important part in the story. By accidentally showing his ’ ’bare posteriors” to Tabitha, Humphry becomes the target for her wrath and rage, and this fact causes Bramble to look with pity and compassion upon him. When he learns that Humphry is penniless and that he has suffered through a long and dangerous illness, Bramble is immediately prejudiced in his favor; and when he learns that the landlord of the inn has refused to assist Clinker because he restricts his "charit able” activities to paying the "poor rate," Bramble addresses Jery in the following manner: ’You perceive,’ said the squire, turning to me, ’our landlord is a Christian of bowels. Who shall presume to censure the morals of the age, when the very 91»Fathers and Sons— Humphry Clinker." Literature and Psychology. XVI (1966), l66. 247 publicans exhibit such examples of humanity? Hark ye, Clinker, you are a most notorious offender. You stand convicted of sickness, hunger, wretchedness, and want. But as it does not belong to me to punish criminals, I will only take upon me the task of giving you a word of advice— Get a shirt with all convenient despatch, that your nakedness may not henceforward give offence to travelling gentlewomen, especially maidens in years.’92 When Bramble later considers taking Clinker into his service on a permanent basis, Humphry presents an impressive list of qualifications and accomplishments: *1 can read and write, and do the business of the stable indifferent well. I can dress a horse and shoe him, and bleed and rowl him; and, as for the practice of sow- gelding, I won’t turn my back on e’er a he in the county of Wilts. Then I make hogs puddings and hob-nails, mend kettles, and tin sauce-pans. . . . I know something of single stick and psalmody . . . I can play upon the Jew’s harp, sing Black-eyed Susan, Arthur 0’Bradley, and divers other songs. I can dance a Welsh jig, and Nancy Dawson; wrestle a fall with any lad of my inches, when I’m in heart; and, under correction, I can find a hare when your honour wants a bit of game.’93 Finally, when Tabitha insists that Bramble must choose between her and Clinker, Bramble finally asserts his authority and effectively stands up to his sister: ’If stated fairly . . . the question is, whether I have spirit to shake off an intolerable yolce, by one effort of resolution, or meanness enough to do an act of cruelty and injustice, to gratify the rancour of a capricious woman. Hark ye, Mrs. Tabitha Bramble, I will now propose an alternative in my turn. Either discard your four-footed favourite, or give me leave to bid you eternally adieu. For I am determined that he and I shall live no longer under the same roof. • . This is an excellent example of the good life in action; 9%orks. ed. Maynadier, XI, 124. 93ibid.. XI, 126. 94ibid.. XI, 128-129. 248 ramble refuses to bow down to the whims of his sister, and y doing so he insures that justice and charity will prevail rather than caprice and malice. Tabitha is effectively humbled, and Humphry becomes a permanent fixture in the Bramble family. Sheridan Baker has pointed out that Humphry’s name is significant: the name "Humphry” suggests the phrase "Duke Humphry," which was "a commonplace for impoverished nobility," and one of the meanings of "Clinker" is excre ment .95 To a large extent, then, Clinker is a comic figure, a sort of standing joke throughout the novel. However, he is also a very noble figure in many ways; he is honest, hard-working, pious, grateful, and unfailingly loyal. Ironically, Bramble begins his journey complaining about having to care for other people’s children, but before the novel ends it turns out that Clinker is Bramble’s illegiti mate son, and thus Bramble himself has been unconsciously guilty of making other people care for his offspring. Sheridan Baker points out that, "Fielding’s Andrews and Jones both disclose remarkably white skin before we learn the full extent of their excellence,"9^ and the same holds true for Humphry, whose "bare posteriors" reveal, as Win Jenkins phrases it, "a skin as fair as alabaster."9? In 95"Humphry Clinker as Comic Romance," p. 191. 9^Ibid.. p. 162. 97tyorks, ed. Maynadier, XI, 122. 249 short, "Smollett has prepared the irony . . . that Clinker is both a beggarly foundling and Matthew Bramble’s flesh and blood."9® The major function of Clinker during the London episode is to provide a good example against which the numerous bad examples found in the city can be measured. Bramble begins his evaluation of the city on a positive note, but quickly shifts to a blanket condemnation: It must be allowed, indeed, for the credit of the present age, that London and Westminster are much better paved and lighted than they were formerly. The new streets are spacious, regular, and airy, and the houses generally convenient. The bridge at Blackfriars is a noble monument of taste and public spirit— I wonder how they stumbled upon a work of such magnificence and utility. But, notwithstanding these improvements, the capital is become an overgrown monster, which, like a dropsical head, will in time leave the body and extrem ities without nourishment and support.99 As was the case at Bath, Bramble sees luxury, corruption, and the disappearance of subordination, order, and degree as the "disease" which has produced these "symptoms": There are many causes that contribute to the daily increase of this enormous mass; but they may be all resolved into the grand source of luxury and corruption .... The gayest places of public entertainment are filled with fashionable figures, which, upon inquiry, will be found to be journeymen tailors, serving-men, and Abigails, disguised like their betters. In short, there is no distinction or subordination left. The different departments of life are jumbled together— the 9^B. L. Reid, "Smollett’s Healing Journey," p. 557. 99works. ed. Maynadier, XI, 131. It is, of course, appropriate that Bramble would use a medical metaphor to describe the city; his own "illness" and the earlier diag nosis of his condition as "dropsy" are still in his mind. 250 hod-carrier, the low mechanic, the tapster, the publi can, the shopkeeper, the pettifogger, the citizen, and courtier, all tread upon the kibes of one another: actuated by the demons of profligacy and licentiousness, they are seen everywhere, rambling, riding, rolling, rushing, jostling, mixing, bouncing, cracking, and crashing in one vile ferment of stupidity and corrup tion. . . .1C>0 Naturally, Lydia and Winifred are awed and amazed by London life, and Tabitha is content and happy because the city abounds with prospective bridegrooms. The specific events of the story, however, reinforce and support Bramble’s observations. Lady Griskin, Bramble’s relative, attempts to lure Lydia into a life of promiscuity and corruption, and Winifred is almost raped when she visits Sadler’s Wells. Bramble’s watchfulness blocks Lady Griskin’s scheme, and Humphry Clinker rescues Winifred; she describes the incident as follows: A fine gentleman with a pig’s tail, and a golden sord by his side, came to comfit me, and offered for to treat me with a pint of wind; but I would not stay; and so in going through the dark passage, he began to show his cloven futt, and went for to be rude; my fellow- servant Umphry Klinker bid him to be sivil, and he gave the young man a dowse in the chops; but, i’fackins, Mr. Clinker wa’n’t long in his debt— with a good oaken sapling he dusted his doublet, for all his golden cheese toaster; and, fipping me under his arm, carried me huom, I nose not how, being as how I was in such a flustra tion. But, thank God! I’m now vaned from all such vanities; for what are all those rarities and vagaries to the glories that shall be revealed hereafter? 0 Molly! ..let not your poor heart be puffed up with vanity.1°1 Bramble and Jery also see plenty of evil and 100Ibid.. XI, 132-133. 101Ibid.. XI, 165 251 corruption. Jery visits a Mr. S , who is none other than Smollett himself,102 and he is amazed to find that Mr. S--- supports a number of incompetent, starving hack writers who repay his generosity by insulting him to his face and by double-crossing him whenever they have the opportunity. Bramble and Jery visit several political figures, and they find nothing but vice, folly, and corruption. Bramble, an ex-member of Parliament, evaluates the Duke of N ^103 an ex-Prime Minister, in the following terms: Whilst I sat in parliament, I never voted with the ministry but three times, when my conscience told me they were in the right. However, if he still keeps levee, I will carry ray nephew thither, that he may see, and learn to avoid the scene; for I think an English gentleman never appears to such disadvantage, as at the levee of a minister. Of his grace I shall say nothing at present, but that for thirty years he was the con stant and common butt of ridicule and execration. He was generally laughed at as an ape in politics, whose office and influence served only to render his folly the more notorious. . . . But this ridiculous ape, this venal drudge, no sooner lost the places he was so ill-qualified to fill, and unfurled the banners of faction, than he was metamorphosed into a pattern of public virtue; the very people who reviled him before, now extolled him to the skies, as a wise, experienced 102This is, of course, only one of several "self- portraits” Smollett presents in the novel. See Lewis M. |Knapp, "Smollett*s Self-Portrait in The Expedition of Humphry Clinker." in The Age of Johnson: Essays Presented to Chauncev B. Tinker (New Haven: 'Tale University Bress, 1949), pp. 148-159. 103The Duke of Newcastle (1693-176B). Lewis M. Knapp points out that he was "conspicuously eccentric and the constant butt of numerous satires." Oxford edition of Humphry Clinker, pp. 36O-36I. 252 statesman, chief pillar of the Protestant succession, and corner-stone of English liberty.1*^ These are rather harsh views— they remind one of Ferret’s bitter attacks on the administration in Sir Launce- lot Greaves. However, Smollett’s technique allows him to present these views in a much more balanced and sophisti cated manner than was possible in Greaves. It is clear that Bramble’s views of London, London life, and the administra tion are to be accepted as accurate— but Smollett’s technique makes it possible for him to indicate that what Bramble sees is only part of the picture. The views of Winifred, Lydia, and Jery are also valid in the sense that they represent other possible ways of viewing London. What is dangerous about the points of view of Lydia, Winifred, and Jery is the fact that they make them vulnerable to some of the evils of the city; this is true even of Jery— as Bramble says, he takes Jery to the Duke’s "levee" so that "he may see, and learn to avoid the scene." However, as long as Bramble is present to guard, control, and direct the family, there is little real danger that harm will come to the family members. Bramble’s experience, his reason, and his moral sense guide and protect the family, and, as we have seen, the very process of providing such guidance and protection is reciprocally beneficial to Bramble. And, 104Works. ed. Maynadier, XI, 149-150. At least Bramble voted with the ministry three times; it will be recalled that Sir Valentine Quickset never did so. 253 finally, in the character of Humphry Clinker Smollett pre sents another source of guidance and protection for the family. Humphry’s virtues are different from Bramble’s; in place of Bramble’s experience, Humphry has a sincere loyalty and devotion to Bramble; in place of Bramble’s reason, Humphry has his Methodist religion; and Humphry’s moral sense, although somewhat different from Bramble’s, is just as strong and almost as effective as Bramble’s. Humphry’s Methodism first surfaces when Bramble and Jery accidentally observe him lecturing a crowd of servants; Bramble assumes that Humphry has turned "mountebank" and is attempting to peddle some "potion" to his audience. When he finds that Humphry’s purpose was actually to convince the people to abandon the habit of "profane swearing," Bramble quickly points out that it is not possible to accomplish such a goal. Bramble has no answer for Humphry, however, when Humphry says, "Why not cure them, my good master? the hearts of those poor people are not so stubborn as your honour seems to think. Make them first sensible that you have nothing in view but their good, then they will listen with patience, and easily be convinced of the sin and folly of a practice that affords neither profit nor pleasure."1^5 105lbid. XI, 151-152. It is interesting to note the parallel between this scene and the similar scene in Sir Launcelot Greaves where Ferret, "disguised as a mounte- bank," sells his "potion" to the crowd. The scene in Greaves is designed to show the stupidity of the crowd; they reject Sir Launcelot’s reason, but accept Ferret’s 254 Humphry’s second appearance as a preacher, however, causes Bramble great agitation and concern; Jery reports that Turning down a narrow lan,e . . . we perceived a crowd of people standing at a door, which, it seems, opened into a kind of Methodist meeting, and were informed that a footman was then holding forth to the congrega tion within. Curious to see this phenomenon, we squeezed into the place with much difficulty; and who should this preacher be but the identical Humphry ClinkerI He had finished his sermon, and given out a psalm, the first stave of which he sung with peculiar grace. But, if we were astonished to see Clinker in the pulpit, we were altogether confounded at finding all the females of our family among the audience. There was Lady Griskin, Mrs. Tabitha Bramble, Mrs. Winifred Jenkins, my sister Liddy . . . and all of them joined in the psalmody with strong marks of devotion.106 To Jery, this incident is merely amusing (,fI could hardly keep my gravity on this ludicrous occasion"^?); but to Bramble it is a very serious matter because he sees it as fresh and startling evidence of the decline of order, sub ordination, and decorum which he has deplored repeatedly in the novel: . . . old Squaretoes was differently affected. The first thing that struck him was the presumption of his worthless "potion." In Clinker, however, Humphry’s lecture serves to illustrate the idea that the crowd is also susceptible to good influences, although it is Humphry’s sincerity and simplicity which move them rather than Bramble’s "reason." Lewis M. Knapp observes that "Bramble . . • would welcome reforms, but how actively he would work to effect them is perhaps questionable." (Introduction to the Oxford edition of Humphry Clinker, p. xvi3« There is no doubt that Humphry would actively work to effect such reforms— and there is evidence that his efforts might well be largely successful. 106works. ed. Maynadier, XI, 207. 1Q7lbid.. XI, 207 255 lacquey, whom he commanded to come down, with such an air of authority, as Humphry did not think proper to disregard. He descended immediately, and all the people were in commotion. . . . My uncle, with a sneer, asked pardon of the ladies for having interrupted their devotions, saying, he had particular business with the preacher, whom he order to call a hackney-coach. This being immediately brought up . . . he handed Liddv into it . . . [but] perceiving Liddy in trepidation, [h§] assumed a milder aspect, bidding her be under no con cern, for he was not at all displeased at anything she had done. *1 have no objection,* said he, *to your being religiously inclined; but I don*t think my servant a proper ghostly director for a devotee of your sex and character.fl0o When Bramble confronts Clinker, he begins by dismissing him from his service, but Humphry*s humility, submission, and loyalty make it difficult for Bramble to maintain his fury; Clinker says, nI hope . . . I have not failed in my duty to your honour; I should be a vile wretch if I did, considering the misery from which your charity and compassion relieved me. . . ."1°9 When, however, Clinker mentions an "admoni tion of the Spirit," Bramble reacts as follows: Admonition of the devilI . . . What admonition, you blockhead? What right has such a fellow as you to set up as a reformer? . . . What you imagine to be the new light of grace . . . I take to be a deceitful vapour, glimmering through a crack in your upper storey; in a word, Mr. Clinker, I will have no light in my family but what pays the king*s taxes, unless it be the light of reason, which you don*t pretend to follow.-1 - 10 When Humphry affirms that it is not the "light of reason" that he follows, Bramble evaluates his "admonition" in the following manner: 1QgIbid.. XI, 207-20S. 1Q9lbid.. XI, 209. llOlbid., XI, 209. 256 Hark ye, Clinker, you are either an hypocritical knave, or a wrong-headed enthusiast, and, in either case unfit for my service. If you are a quack in sanctity and devotion, you will find it an easy matter to impose upon silly women, and others of crazed understanding, who will contribute lavishly for your support. If you are really seduced by the reveries of a disturbed imagination, the sooner you lose your senses entirely, the better for yourself and the community. In that case some charitable person might provide you with a dark room and clean straw in Bedlam, where it would not be in your power to infect others with your fanaticism; whereas, if you have just reflection enough left to maintain the character of a chosen vessel in the meetings of the godly, you and your hearers will be misled by a Will-0*-the wisp from one error into another, till you are plunged into religious frenzy; and then, perhaps, you will hang yourself in despair.111 At this point it appears as if Smollett*s opinion of Methodism and Methodists is what T. B. Shepherd identi fies as the "typical" opinion of those who were hostile to the movement: "... various writers . . . who were hostile, like Walpole, Fielding, and Churchill, saw Methodists as hypocrites who simply acted their *ugly enthusiasm* for the sake of money or fame. It was then their earnest hope that the movement would disappear quickly like any other fashionable craze."3.12 Shepherd reminds us that John Wesley himself labelled Smollett*s opinions of Methodism "notorious falsehoods,"H3 and, taken out of con text, Bramble’s remarks certainly constitute a strong 111Ibid., XI, 210. 11^Methodism and the Literature of the Eighteenth Century (New York: Haskell House, 1966), p. 247. u 3lbid., p. 128. 257 indictment of Methodism. However, Humphry’s reply to the false dilemma which Bramble presents to him is totally unexpected and is effective in counteracting Bramble’s sense of ’ ’outrage'1: It is very possible I may be under the temptation of the devil, who wants to wreck me on the rocks of spiritual pride. Your honour says I am either a knave or a madman; now, as I’ll assure your honour I am no knave, it follows that I must be mad; therefore, I beseech your honour, upon my knees, to take my case into consideration, that means may be used for my recovery. . . . I would not willingly give offence to any soul upon earth • . . I am bound to love and obey your honour. It becometh not such a poor ignorant fellow as me to hold dispute with a gentleman of rank and learning. As for the matter of knowledge, I am no more than a beast in comparison to your honour, therefore I submit. . . Bramble is so impressed by Humphry’s response that he agrees to keep him in his service. Clearly, it is the fact that Humphry combines a proper regard for subordina tion, and a great deal of sincerity, loyalty, and devotion, with his Methodism, that sways Bramble. T. B. Shepherd comments that . . . Smollett always makes Clinker a simple fellow, Gpu^ he never casts doubt on his courage. His Meth odist is no conventional, psalm-singing hypocrite; neither are his accomplishments small or puritanical. He is never like the stage Methodist or Puritan, but his list of abilities closely resembles those of some of the early Methodist preachers. His special knowledge was of horses. Had Smollett met some of the real men before he drew Clinker? H5 114Works. ed. Maynadier, XI, 210-211. •^Methodism and the Literature of the Eighteenth Century, p. 221. 253 Shepherd also points out that Humphry*s Methodism has a good influence upon Lydia and Winifred and that even Tabitha, whose sincerity as a Methodist "convert" is to be doubted, benefits from the influence of Humphry: .. . Tabitha is pleasanter and more kindly even as a Methodist humbug than in her former state. . . . Thus, though Smollett tends to smile at the Methodists he draws, he cannot be said to be more critical of them than of any one else in the book, and often his tolerant attitude toward Humphry*s simplicity seems tinged with admiration. He states their case quite fairly and shows an intimate knowledge of many of their habits. Thus, the book is as much as apologia for Methodism as it is a criticism.116 The climax of the second episode of Humphry Clinker comes when Humphry is unjustly seized and thrown in prison. This fact in itself is a comment upon the evil and corrup tion of London; Jery observes that "All things considered, the poor fellow cannot possibly be guilty, and yet, I believe he runs some risk of being hanged.A further irony is the fact that the man who is really guilty of the crime Humphry is accused of appears in court to defend him: " . . . his worship knew very well that Clinker was innocent of the fact, and that the real highwayman . . . was no other than that very individual Mr. Martin, who had pleaded so strenuously for honest Humphry.Finally, it is ironic that even in prison Humphry makes his influence for good 116Ibid.. pp. 223-224. U-7Works. ed. Maynadier, XI, 222-223. 13-^Ibid., XI, 224. 259 felt— and as a result is cordially detested by those in authority: The turnkey, who received us at Clerkenwell, looked remarkably sullen; and when we inquired for Clinker, •I don’t care if the devil had him,* said he; ’here has been nothing but canting and praying since the fellow entered the place. Rabbitt him! the tap will be ruined— we han’t sold a cask of beer, nor a dozen of wine . . . the gentlemen get drunk with nothing but your d— ned religion. For my part, I believe as how your man deals with the devil. . . • and if the fellow an’t speedily removed by habeas corpus, or otherwise, I’ll be d— ned if there’s a grain of true spirit left within these walls . . . there will be nothing but snivelling in the cart--we shall all die like so many psalm-singing weavers.*1^ William Park points out that Bramble’s reaction to Humphry’s imprisonment is further evidence of the psychoso matic nature of Bramble’s "illness."I2® Bramble informs Dr. Lewis that I find my spirits and my health affect each other reciprocally— that is to say, everything that discom poses my mind, produces a correspondent disorder in my body; and my bodily complaints are remarkably mitigated by those considerations that dissipate the clouds of mental chagrin. The imprisonment of Clinker brought on those symptoms which I mentioned in my last, and now they are vanished at his discharge.12^ It is Win Jenkins, however, who gives the final comment on Humphry’s imprisonment; whereas it is true that Humphry’s goodness shows that there can be much virtue among members of the lower classes, Win’s letter again illustrates that 119Ibid., XI, 22S. 120«pathers and Sons— Humphry Clinker." p. 169. 121works. ed. Maynadier, XI, 234. 260 these people need direction and guidance, and that they are capable of only a very limited degree of independent thought and action. Win’s letter is a masterpiece of misunder standing and error, and the blunders in spelling and grammar give incongruous sexual overtones to her religious musings. Thus the final view of London and London life is Winifred’s view; on Humphry’s imprisonment, she writes: What is life but a veil of affliction: 0 MaryI the whole family have been in such a constipationI Mr. Clinker has been in trouble, but the gates of hell have not been able to prevail against him. His virtue is like pour gould, seven times tried in the fire. He was tuck up for a rubbery, and had before Gustass Busshard, who made his mittamouse; and the pore youth was sent to prison upon the false oaf of a willian, that wanted to sware his life away for the looker of Cain.1*2 On Bramble’s role in rescuing Clinker and upon the "mysteries" of the English legal system, she writes that The squire did all in his power, but could not prevent his being put in chains, and confined among common manufactors, where he stud like an innocent sheep in the midst of wolves and tygers. Lord knows what mought have happened to this pyehouse young man, if master had not applied to Appias Korkus, who lives with the ould bailiff, and is, they say, five hundred years ould, (God bless us!) and a congeror; but, if he be, sure I am he don’t deal with the devil, otherwise he would n’t have sought out Mr. Clinker, as he did, in spite of stone walls, iron bolts, and double locks, that flew open at his command; for Ould Scratch has not a greater enemy upon hearth than Mr. Clinker. • • .123 On Humphry’s religion and its influence upon the family, she asserts that 122ibid#> XI, 235. 123lbid., XI, 235. 261 • . . (Clinker] is indeed a very powerful labourer in the Lordfs vineyard. I do no more than use the words of my good lady (TabithaJ , who has got the ineffectual calling; and I trust, that even myself, though unworthy, shall find grease to be accepted. Miss Lidy has been touched to the quick, but is a little timorsome; howm- soever, I make no doubt, but she and all of us, will be brought, by the endeavours of Mr. Clinker, to produce blessed fruit of generation and repentance. As for master, and the young squire, they have as yet had narro glimpse of the new light. I doubt as how their hearts are hardened by worldly wisdom, which, as the pyebill saith, is foolishness in the sight of God.124 And, finally, Winifred comments upon her hopes for the future: 0 Mary Jones, pray without seizing for grease to prepare you for the operations of this wonderful instrument, which, I hope, will be exorcised this winter upon you and others at Brambleton Hall. Tomorrow, we are to set out in a cox and four for Yorkshire; and, I believe, we shall travel that way far, and far, and farther than I can tell: but I shan’t go so far as to forget my friends • • • The third major episode of Humphry Clinker serves jprimarily as a transition; the family moves northward from corrupt, ugly London to innocent, beautiful Scotland, and along the way they meet several interesting characters who help to illustrate and to clarify the theme of the good life 124lbid>. XI, 235-236. 3-25lbid.. XI, 236. Giorgio Melchiori notes that Smollett’s use of Win’s linguistic blunders is similar to what James Joyce does on a much larger scale in Ulysses and Finnegan’s Wake: "By the time we reach the eighth letter, the implications of her misspellings are much subtler— the author had discovered that he could take advantage of them to form new composite words with a higher concentration of meaning, and tell a story on different levels, implying in this way two separate trains of thought." The Tightrope Walkers (New York: The Macmillan Company, 19^6), p. 40. 262 in action. Before the family has travelled far upon the northern road, they are attacked by highwaymen; Humphry, who has been appointed Bramble,s "life-guard1 1 for the journey, is mysteriously joined by Mr. Martin, the highwayman from London, and together they drive away the bandits. Bramble and Jery are, of course, astonished by the appearance of Martin, and they are very curious to learn his motives for having assisted the family. After he departs, Martin sends a letter to Bramble which explains the mystery: he is tired of his life of crime and wants to escape from it, but finds it impossible to do so. Impressed by Bramble*s character and his concern for his servant, Humphry, Martin requests a position in Bramble*s service. Bramble reacts to Martin’s letter as follows: The squire, having perused this letter, put it into my hand, without saying a syllable; and when I had read it, we looked at each other in silence. From a certain sparkling in his eyes, I discovered that there was more in his heart than he cared to express with his tongue, in favour of poor Martin; and this was precisely my own feeling, which he did not fail to discern, by the same means of communication— ’What shall we do,* said he, *to save this poor sinner from the gallows, and make him a useful member of the commonwealth?* .... I told him I really believed Martin was capable of [reformatioa) . . . and that I should heartily concur in any step he might take in favour of his solicitation. We mutually resolved to deliberate upon the subject, and in the meantime proceeded on our journey.12° We thus see Bramble and Jery cooperating in attempting to rescue Martin from a life of crime; this 126Works. ed. Maynadier, XI, 243• 263 underscores the growing understanding between the two men and serves as still another illustration of the good life in action. Before they can decide upon a proper plan of action, however, what at first glance appears to be a point less digression occurs: while visiting at a country estate, they witness an adventure in which a country apothecary, !Mr. Grieve, rescues a foreign nobleman from bandits. This Mr. Grieve turns out to be none other than Ferdinand Count Fathom, the "hero" of Smollett’s third novel; the nobleman is, of course, Renaldo de Melvil, Ferdinand’s benefactor. There is a scene of joyous reunion, and we learn that Srieve-Fathom has lived an exemplary life since he became a "sincere convert to virtue": In a word, Grieve was no other than Ferdinand Count Fathom, whose adventures were printed many years ago. Being a sincere convert to virtue, he had changed his name, that he might elude the inquiries of the Count, whose generous allowance he determined to forego, that he might have no dependence but upon his own industry and moderation. He had accordingly settled in this village as a practitioner in surgery and physic, and for some years wrestled with all the miseries of indi gence; which, however, he and his wife had borne with the most exemplary resignation. At length, by dint of unwearied attention to the duties of his profession, which he exercised with equal humanity and success, he had acquired a tolerable share of business among the farmers and common people, which enabled him to live in a decent manner. He had been scarce ever seen to smile, was unaffectedly pious; and all the time he could spare from the avocations of his employment, he spent in educating his daughter, and in studying for his own improvement. In short, the adventurer Fathom, was, under the name of Grieve, universally respected among the commonalty of this district, as a prodigy of learning and virtue.12? 127lMd.. XI. 258-259. 264 There are a number of possibilities as to why Smollett has characters from his third novel appear in his fifth; perhaps he was uneasy about Ferdinand’s sudden "con version” at the end of Count Fathom, or perhaps he was merely fond of these particular fictional characters and simply wanted to take another look at them— the same sort of thing happens in Peregrine Pickle when Morgan, Roderick Random’s friend, makes a brief appearance. However, what ever the motive for this particular "digression," the effect of it is that it comments upon the plan by Jery and Bramble to assist the repentant criminal, Mr. Martin. If a scoundrel such as Ferdinand can repent and live the good life, why not Martin? When Martin finally reappears, Bramble’s "plan" for him is revealed in the following manner: My uncle . . . told him (Martin), that we were both very well inclined to rescue him from a way of life that was equally dangerous and dishonourable; and that he should have no scruple in trusting to his gratitude and fidelity. . . . ’It would be no difficult matter to provide you with an asylum in the country . . . but a life of indolence and obscurity would not suit with your active and enterprising disposition— I would therefore advise you to try your fortune in the East Indies. I will give you a letter to a friend in London, who will recommend you to the direction, for a commis sion in the Company’s service; and if that cannot be obtained, you will at least be received as a volunteer . .. and I shall undertake to procure you such credentials, that you will not be long without a commission.’128 It is significant that Bramble does not propose a life of 12gIbid.. XII, 12-13. 265 retirement and inactivity for Martin; he realizes by this point in the novel that such a life is liable to be unhealthy for him. Several other adventures occur as the family moves northward; Humphry*s role as "life-guard" is humorously underscored when he wrongly believes Bramble to be in danger of drowning and consequently "rescues" him from the sea. When the coach breaks down, however, Humphry does show his usefulness by repairing it in a very skilfull manner. A prospective bridegroom for Tabitha appears, a Mr. Mickle- whimmen, and in an extremely amusing " f i r e - s c e n e " ^ 2 ^ k e reveals himself to be such a liar and a coward that even Tabitha rejects him. The major event of the third episode is, however, the appearance of Lt. Obadiah Lismahago.-^O The appearance of Lismahago marks the turning point 129This is one of two "fire-scenes" in Humphry Clinker; Philip M. Griffith conjectures that "Smollett • • . may well have recalled the famous fire-scene in Clarissa when he adopted for the only time in his novelistic career an epistolary method introduced by and largely associated with Richardson; utilized the fire-scenes in Clinker for comic rather than tragic purposes and thus obliquely, in two swiftly-moving farcial scenes, ridiculed Richardson*s inherently lurid and tediously lengthened-out incident; and was able safely, from a position of time and securely established reputation, to strike a final deft blow at the *moral* Richardson." "Fire-Scenes in Richardson’s Clarissa and Smollett’s Humphry Clinker: A Study of a Literary Relationship in the Structure of the Novel," Tulane Studies in English. XI (1961), 39-40. •^OThe character Lismahago is based partly upon an actual person, Captain Robert Stobo. For an account of Stobo and his relationships to Smollett see George M. Kahrl, Tobias Smollett: Traveler-Novelist. pp. 132-144* 266 in the novel; Lismahago serves as the vehicle for a further modification and expansion of the technique Smollett employs in exploring and developing the concept of the good life. As we have seen, the journey of the Bramble family up until the point where Lismahago appears has been a record of how Bramble and Jery have moved steadily toward the goal of "responsible, mature masculinity." Jery has progressed in his understanding and appreciation of his uncle’s character, and Bramble’s physical ailments (and consequently some of his gloom and pessimism) have been to some extent relieved through the process of communicating his complaints to Dr. Lewis and through the activity and involvement which the journey itself has provided. In the character of Humphry Clinker, there has even been evidence presented that some of Bramble’s social and political theories may need further examination and, perhaps, revision.^31 With the appearance of Lismahago, however, Bramble’s theories and opinions must endure a much more profound and comprehensive examination; David L. Evans describes the significance of Lismahago as follows: l3lFor a discussion of Smollett’s attitude toward Methodism which presents a point of view almost exactly opposite to the one presented above see Byron Gassman, "Religious Attitudes in the World of Humphry Clinker." Brigham Young University Studies. VI (1^64), 65-?2. Gassman assumes that only Bramble speaks for Smollett and fails to take account of how the technique Smollett employs in the novel helps to modify and! qualify Bramble’s statements. 267 No longer than a half an hour after Martin departs, Bramble meets the ’original* who is to reawaken and engage his intellect as other characters and incidents have activated his emotional and moral sensibilities. In Lismahago, with his irascible but experience-tested opinions, Bramble meets a character who, largely because of the comically grotesque nature of his background and experience, can upset much of Bramble’s dogmatism. For the first time, Bramble does not simply voice opinions with the exaggerated bitterness of the satirist; he is forced to think, to reconsider, to listen. Throughout the book there has been a dialectic of sorts, in which the multiple points of view offer criticisms of each other, but in the encounters between Bramble and Lismahago the distinctions between rationality based on prejudice and rationality based on experience become clear. The debates with Lismahago throw into relief the alterations in Bramble’s outlook. . . .132 The first description of Lismahago in Humphry Clinker has been cited by Walter Allen as evidence that ’ ’ Monsters are what men become in the novels of Tobias Smollett, ”133 an(j one rea<js no farther than this first description there appears to be some basis for Allen’s assertion: He would have measured above six feet in height, had he stood upright; but he stooped very much, was very narrow in the shoulders, and very thick in the calves of the legs, which were cased in black spatterdashes. As for his thighs, they were long and slender, like those of a grasshopper; his face was at least half a yard in length, brown and shrivelled, with projecting cheek-bones, little grey eyes on the greenish hue, a large hook nose, a pointed chin, a mouth from ear to ear, very ill furnished with teeth, and a high narrow forehead, well furrowed with wrinkles. His horse was exactly in the style of its rider; a resurrection of J-32»iHump] ary clinker: Smollett’s Tempered Augustan- ism,” p. 26B. 133The English Novel (New York: E. P. Dutton and Company, 1954), p. 62. 26a dry bones, which (as we afterwards learned) he valued exceedingly,.as the only present he had ever received in his life.W Lismahago himself informs the family that "... having been wounded at Ticonderoga in America, a party of Indians rifled him, scalped him, broke his skull with the blow of a tomahawk, and left him for dead. • . .”3-35 When Matt Bramble learns that, in addition to his physical scars and deformities, Lismahago has been unable to rise above the rank of lieutenant after thirty years of service, because he lacks the money to purchase a higher commission, Bramble immediately begins to rail and rave about the injustice of Lismahago’s case; however, Lismahago cuts him short and says: I complain of no injustice. I purchased an ensigncy thirty years ago; and, in the course of service, rose to be a lieutenant, according to my seniority. . . . I had no money to carry to market— that was my misfor tune; but nobody was to blame. . . . I am a gentleman; and entered the service as other gentlemen do, with such hopes and sentiments as honourable ambition inspires. If I have not been lucky in the lottery of life, so neither do I think myself unfortunate. I owe no man a farthing; I can always command a clean shirt, a mutton chop, and a truss of straw; and, when I die, I shall leave effects sufficient to defray the expense of my burial. 3-3 6 This rebuttal of Bramble’s views sets the pattern for the relationship between the two men; Lismahago has a ready answer for each of Bramble’s opinions and assertions, !34works. ed. Maynadier, XII, 15. 135lbid.. XII, 15-16. 136jbid., XII, 16-17. 269 and, as Bramble confesses, . . . Lismahago . . . is, I think, one of the most singular personages I ever encountered. His manner is as harsh as his countenance; but his peculiar turn of thinking, and his pack of knowledge, made up of the remnants of rarities, rendered his conversation desirable, in spite of his pedantry and ungracious address. I have often met with a crab-apple in a hedge, which I have been tempted to eat for its flavour, even while I was disgusted by its austerity. The spirit of contradiction is naturally so strong in Lismahago, that I believe in my conscience he has rummaged, and read, and studied with indefatigable attention, in order to qualify himself to refute established maxims, and thus raise trophies for the gratification of polemical pride. Such is the asperity of his self-conceit, that he will not even acquiesce in a transient compliment made to his own individual in particular, or to his country in general.^37 Robert Hopkins points out that "Lismahago as a therapeutic foil helps to ameliorate Matthew*s morbid imagination in that as the living grotesque object, Lisma hago serves as a catharsis for Matthew*s grotesque views • • • ."^38 Even Jery, who at first regards Lismahago as "a self-conceited pedant, awkward, rude, and disputa- tious,"^39 soon confesses that "Lismahago is a curiosity which I have not yet sufficiently perused. In short, Lismahago causes each man to reconsider and re-examine his ideas, opinions, and attitudes. Wibid., XII, 37. l36ttThe Function of Grotesque in Humphry Clinker.” l39works. ed. Maynadier, XII, 17. lz*°Ibid., XII, 35. 270 Louis L. Martz has shown that the views which Lismahago voices concerning his native Scotland are essen tially the same views that Smollett himself presented in The Present State of All Nations and The Britoni It . . • appears that the essential quality of Lisma hago *s character— his love for paradoxical argument— has been carefully developed in order to serve as a vehicle for the paradox which forms an essential part of Smollett*s purpose in the novel as a whole: to decry the English and exalt the Scots. By praising the Scots in one of . • . [hi£] long polemics and denouncing the English in the other, Lismahago serves as the axis upon which the emphasis of the novel shifts from satire to praise. . . . despite the humorous functions which Lismahago also serves, Smollett*s aim in introducing him was primarily didactic, for he has deliberately dis carded him throughout the actual tour of Scotland, apparently for two reasons: first, to avoid further grotesquerie which might unduly interrupt the descrip tion; and second, to allow the favorable account of Scotland, begun by Lismahago, to be carried on by South Britons whose approval of Scotland could not be accounted as prejudice. Then, when the truth of Scot land’s excellence has been provided by accounts which arise from the uncoerced conversation of the visitors, Lismahago is brought back to resume his polemics, with both Bramble and the reader more willing to accept his paradoxical arguments.1^1 Martz also points out, however, that n . • • these details [concerning Scotland] can be merged with the presentation of character in such a way that the vitality and consistency of the fiction is not impair ed.'*1^2 Most of Lismahago*s obser vations and opinions are to be accepted as accurate, but Lismahago*s character, like Bramble’s, is to some extent 3-4-lThe Later Career of Tobias Smollett, pp. 170-171. See also Byron Gassman. r t The Briton and Humphry Clinker.n Studies in English Literature. Ill (1962), 397-/4-4. ^ 2The Later Career of Tobias Smollett, p. 163. 271 flawed and distorted by his disappointments in life. As Ronald Paulson has pointed out, "Lismahago, like Bramble, tells the truth or an important part of it, but . . . they are both incomplete men. . . ."143 Just as Bramble needs Lismahago to ’ ’reawaken and engage his intellect,” Lismahago needs Bramble to provide economic security and an oppor tunity to exercise his talents and abilities in a full and useful manner. Once the tour of Scotland has been completed and Lismahago has re-joined the family, Jery reports that My uncle, who is really a Don Quixote in generosity, understanding that Lismahago*s real reason for leaving Scotland was the impossibility of subsisting in it with any decency upon the wretched provision of a subaltern’s half-pay, began to be warmly interested on the side of compassion. He thought it very hard, that a gentleman, who had served his country with honour, should be driven by necessity to spend his old age among the refuse of mankind. . . . He discoursed with me upon the subject, observing, that he would willingly offer the lieutenant an asylum at Brambleton Hall, if he did not foresee that his singularities and humour of contradiction would render him an intolerable house-mate, though his conversation at some times might be both instructive and entertaining; but, as there seemed to be something particular in his attention to Mrs. Tabitha, he and I agreed in opinion, that this intercourse should be encouraged, and improved, if possible, into a matri monial union; in which case there might be a comfortable provision for both; and they might be settled in a house of their own, so that Mr. Bramble should have no more of their company than he desired.144 This is again a picture of the good life in action; Jery and Bramble cooperate in order to provide for an unfortunate— ^-43satire and the Novel in Eighteenth-Century England, p. 203. 144works. ed. Maynadier, XII, 137. 272 but very deserving— individual. And, again, in the process of living the good life Bramble is able to see the possi bility of improving the good life for himself as well as the opportunity of providing it for others. When we turn to the fourth major episode of the novel, the tour of Scotland, it is necessary to point out that the statement by Louis L. Martz that Smollett’s purpose in the novel is to "decry the English and exalt the Scots" requires some qualification. It is true that, on the whole, Scotland is presented in more favorable terras than is England— especially the England of Bath and London— but it is also true that Even though the sympathetic treatment of Scotland and castigation of England enforce a duality of tone, this duality is not absolute, for there is clearly a partial vindication of England and a partial censure of Scot land. We must also recognize that the epistolary form provides the novel with a multiplicity of views. . . . since the novel provides some kind of progression, attitudinal changes paralleling to some degree topo graphical changes, statements about England and Scotland must be considered relative to structural and thematic development. Any consideration of Smollett’s attitude toward England and Scotland must necessarily take into account this relativity of views within the organic whole. 145 Robert A. Donovan gives a very similar evaluation of the fourth episode when he asserts that . . . it is inherent in Smollett’s method that the body of experience being rendered should be subordinate to the characters and personalities of those who render it. At the focus of Smollett’s imaginative vision in 145m . A. Goldberg, Smollett and the Scottish School, pp. 145-146. 273 Humphry Clinker are the modes of perception by which the five main characters assert their individuality • . • . the novel spends too little time and space recommending Scotland, and its judgments of both England and Scotland are so equivocal, so full of qualifications and exceptions, that they hardly serve the propaganda purposes imputed to them. We may conclude, then, that "propaganda" is not the purpose of the fourth episode of the novel. Again, it is important to remember that Smollett*s technique emphasizes the fact that what one sees in life is largely a matter of what one looks for, and of how one looks, and the fact that the intellectual stimulation provided for Bramble by Lismahago comes just before the family crosses into Scotland is significant. In Scotland, Bramble is much less doctri naire and arbitrary in his judgments than he was in Bath and London. He enters Scotland with an open mind, and finds more to praise than to condemn. In one sense it is perhaps true that Smollett does slant his work in favor of his native Scotland; in the experiences of Bramble and Jery in Scotland, he suggests that if intelligent, reasonably unprejudiced Englishmen will simply examine Scotland objec tively they will find more to praise than to condemn. In that sense his method is somewhat similar to the method used by another notable Scot, James Boswell, in removing some of the prejudices and misconceptions held by Dr. Johnson. There are some areas, of course, in which objec tivity is impossible or undesireable. As the party prepares ^ T h e Shaping Vision, pp. 132-133._______ _________ 274 to enter Scotland, Tabitha gets wind of a rumor to the effect that there is nothing to eat in Scotland; she implores Bramble to carry extra food so that they will not starve to death once they cross the Tweed. Later she commits an even more ridiculous blunder; Jery observes: She was so little acquainted with the geography of the island, that she imagined we could not go to Scotland but by sea; and, after we had passed through the town of Berwick, when we told her we were upon Scottish ground, she could hardly believe the assertion. If the truth must be told, the South Britons in general are wofully ignorant in this particular. What between want of curiosity and traditional sarcasms, the effect of ancient animosity, the people at the other end of the island know as little of Scotland as of Japan.147 Later— through Winifred— Smollett comments adversely upon the sanitary conditions of Edinburgh: . . . all the chairs in the family are emptied into this here barrel once a day; and at ten o’clock at night the whole cargo is fixing out of a back windore that looks into some street or lane, and the maid calls Gardv loo to the passengers, which signifies, Lord have mercy upon you! and this is done every night in every house in Baddingboroxigh; so you may guess, Mary Jones, what a sweet savour comes from such a number of profuming pans. But they say it is wholesome, and truly I believe it is; for being in the vapours, and thinking of . . . Mr. Clinker, I was going into a fit of astericks, when this fiff . . . took me by the nose p o powerfully, that I sneezed three times, and found mys. If wonderfully refreshed; and this to be sure is the raisin why there are no fits in Haddingborough.I48 Bramble also comments disapprovingly upon this practice of dumping sewage into the streets, but his tone is much milder than it was when, for example, he raved and railed about the I47Works. ed. Maynadier, XII, 54-55. J-^Ibid.. XII, 64-65. 275 intolerable stench at the ball at Bath; Bramble writes to Dr. Lewis that You are no stranger to their method of discharging all their impurities from their windows, at a certain hour of the night, as the custom is in Spain, Portugal, and some parts of France and Italy; a practice to which I can by no means be reconciled; for, notwithstanding all the care that is taken by their scavengers to remove this nuisance every morning by break of day, enough still remains to offend the eyes, as well as the other organs of those whom use has not hardened against all delicacy of sensation.149 Bramble speaks here as the man of reason and experience, the leader of the good life; he puts what is, after all, a rather disgusting practice into its proper perspective— he accepts it as a fact of life and refuses to take a narrow or provincial point of view. At the same time, however, he is uncompromising in his disapproval; unlike Winifred, he is in no danger of being r t argued out of his senses.” The climax of the fourth episode comes when the Bramble family visits Smollett’s birthplace. Since it is Smollett’s birthplace, it is not surprising that the area around the Leven river is presented as the most beautiful place on earth; Matt Bramble describes the area as follows: We now crossed the water of Leven, which, though nothing near so considerable as the Clyde, is much more trans parent, pastoral, and delightful. This charming stream is the outlet of Loch Lomond, and through a track of four miles pursues its winding course, murmuring over a bed of pebbles. . . . Everything here is romantic beyond imagination. This country is justly styled the Arcadia of Scotland; and I don’t doubt but it may vie with Arcadia in everything but climate. I am sure it ^ibid.. XII, 61. 276 excels it in verdure, wood, and water. . . . Enclosed I send you the copy of a little ode to this river by Dr. Smollett, who was born on the banks of it, within two miles of the place where I am now writing.150 Smollett thus manages to include his own poetic tribute to his birthplace in Humphry Clinker. William Park comments: They have arrived at Smollett’s own birthplace, Bramble introduces Smollett’s ’Ode to Leven Water’ into his letters. . . . In the common sense spirit of the mid- eighteenth-century novel this is as close as one can get to a heavenly vision. . . . Loch Lomond and Smollett's birth place serve in this novel as the ’world navel,’ or in orthodox terms as a new Eden, a spiritual place in this world where an eighteenth- century traveller can, like Bramble, lay up ’a considerable stock of health.’151 Bramble does, indeed, see his experiences in Scotland as an opportunity to "lay up a considerable stock of health," and shortly after the visit to Smollett’s birthplace the family returns to England. The final episode of Humphry Clinker takes place as the family moves southward from Scotland. This final episode is the most detailed and extensive picture of the good life in action in all of Smollett’s fiction. Immedi ately after they return to England, the family again encounters Lismahago— and it becomes clear that he is to become a permanent member of the family: Yesterday, while I was alone with him, he asked, in some confusion, if I should have any objection to the success of a gentleman and soldier, provided he should be so fortunate as to engage my sister’s affection? I 150ibid.. XII, 10S-109. 151"Fathers and Sons— Humphry Clinker." pp. 170-171. 277 answered, without hesitation, that my sister was old enough to judge for herself; and that I should be very far from disapproving any resolution she might take in his favour* His eyes sparkled at this declaration* He declared, he should think himself the happiest man on earth to be connected with my family; and that he should never be weary of giving me proofs of his gratitude and attachment. I suppose Tabby and he are already agreed, in which case we shall have a wedding at Brambleton Hall. * . *•‘ •52 Smollett thus shows that Lismahago is finally going to achieve the security that has eluded him, and by providing the opportunity for that security Bramble will be able to improve his own condition. It is clear that Tabitha *s marital frustration will remain a constant source of vexa tion to Bramble unless a suitable husband can be found for her. Immediately after the match between Lismahago and Tabitha is agreed upon, Bramble and Jery visit Lord Oxming- ton, an arrogant nobleman who insults Bramble and by doing so provides an opportunity for both Bramble and Lismahago to demonstrate how the good life should properly be lived. Bramble sends Lismahago to offer a challenge to Lord Oxming- ton, and Lismahago is beaten and insulted by one of Oxmington’s servants. This leads to a heated quarrel between Bramble and Lismahago, neither of whom is willing to allow himself to be insulted with impunity. Once Bramble and Lismahago agree to take out their vengeance upon Lord Oxmington rather than upon each other, the following events 152ff 0rks. ed. Maynadier, XII, 153. 27S are described by Jery: In consequence of our deliberations, we next day, in the forenoon, proceeded in a body to his lordship's house, all of us, with our servants, including the coachman, mounted a-horseback, with our pistols loaded and ready primed. Thus prepared for action, we paraded solemnly and slowly before his lordship's gate, which we passed three times, in such a manner, that he could not but see us, and suspect the cause of our appearance. After dinner we returned, and performed the same caval cade, which was again repeated the following morning • • • • It is only when Lord Oxmington takes notice of the family and offers the proper apologies that Bramble is willing to forgive and forget. As for Lismahago, we are told that the servant who beat and insulted him "... asked pardon of the lieutenant upon his knees, when Lismahago, to the astonishment of all present, gave him a violent kick on the face, which laid him on his back. • . clearly, neither Bramble nor Lismahago is willing to compromise when personal honor is at stake; Jery gives the following evalu ation of the whole affair: Such was the fortunate issue of this perilous adventure, which threatened abundance of vexation to our family; for the squire is one of those who will sacrifice both life and fortune, rather than leave what he conceives to be the least speck or blemish upon his honour and reputation. His lordship had no sooner pronounced his apology, with a very bad grace, than he went away in some disorder, and, I daresay, he will never invite another Welshman to his table.155 Visits by the Bramble family to two other persons 153Ibid.. XII, 163. 154Ibid., XII, 164. 1 5 5 i b i d # , x i l , 1 6 A * 279 have the effect of illustrating how the good life should be lived by providing horrible examples of how it should not be lived. In Mr. Baynard and Sir Thomas Bulford Smollett has created examples of two men whose personal weaknesses prevent them from achieving the good life. Baynard, Matt Bramble*s old school friend, is a man who has allowed his wife’s extravagance and folly to ruin him; Bramble describes the cause of Baynard*s difficulties as follows; His wife was as ignorant as a new-born babe of every thing that related to the conduct of a family; and she had no idea of a country life. Her understanding did not reach so far as to comprehend the first principles of discretion; and indeed, if her capacity had been better than it was, her natural indolence would not have permitted her to abandon a certain routine to which she had been habituated. She had not taste enough to relish any rational enjoyment; but her ruling passion was vanity, not that species which arises from self-conceit of superior accomplishments, but that which is of a bastard and idiot nature, excited by show and ostentation, which implies not even the least conscious ness of any personal merit.156 Bramble then describes the effect which this terrible wife has had upon Baynard; As for Baynard, neither his own good sense, nor the dread of indigence, nor the consideration of his children, has been of force sufficient to stimulate him into the resolution of breaking at once the shameful spell by which he seems enchanted. With a taste capable of the most refined enjoyment, a heart glowing with all the warmth of friendship and humanity, and a disposition strongly turned to the more rational pleasures of a retired and country life, he is hurried about in a perpetual tumult, amidst a mob of beings pleased with rattles, baubles, and gewgaws, so void of sense and distinction, that even the most acute philosophy would find it a very hard task to discover for what wise ^ Ibid.. XII, 167-163. 280 purposes of Providence they were created. Friendship is not to be found, nor can the amusements for which he sighs be enjoyed, within the rotation of absurdity to which he is doomed for life. He has long resigned all views of improving his fortune by management and attention to the exercise of husbandry, in which he delighted; and, as to domestic happiness, not the least glimpse of hope remains to amuse his imagination. Thus blasted in all his prospects, he could not fail to be overwhelmed with melancholy and chagrin, which have preyed upon his health and spirits in such a manner, that he is now threatened with a consumption. J-57 Bramble, of course, attempts to aid Baynard by pointing out to him the cause of all his difficulties: . . . before I went away, I took an opportunity of speaking to him again in private. I said everything I could recollect, to animate his endeavours in shaking off those shameful trammels. I made no scruple to declare, that his wife was unworthy of that tender complaisance which he had shown for her foibles. That she was dead to all the genuine sentiments of conjugal affection; insensible of her own honour and interest, and seemingly destitute of common sense and reflection, i I conjured him to remember what he owed to his father’s j house, to his own reputation, and to his family, includ ing even this unreasonable woman herself, who was driving on blindly to her own d e s t r u c t i o n .15o i (Baynard is too weak to act upon this advice, however, and j Smollett makes it clear that people like Baynard cannot be helped as long as they allow themselves to be dominated by jfoolish and extravagant women. i Sir Thomas Bulford is also a man who is incapable of leading the good life— but in his case it is not an extrava gant wife who causes his difficulties; Bramble describes him as follows: Wibid., xil, 171-172. ^ Ibid.. XII, 182. 2di . . . [jBulfordl is now become a country gentleman; but, being disabled by the gout from enjoying any amusement abroad, he entertains himself within doors, by keeping open house for all comers, and playing upon the oddities and humours of his company. But he himself is generally the greatest original at his table. He is very good- humoured, talks much, and laughs without ceasing. I am told, that all the use he makes of his understanding at present is, to excite mirth, by exhibiting his guests in ludicrous attitudes. I know not how far we may furnish him with entertainment of this kind; but I am resolved to beat up his quarters, partly with a view to laugh with the knight himself, and partly to pay my respects to his lady, a good-natured, sensible woman, with whom he lives upon very easy terms. . . .159 Like Cadwallader Crabtree in Peregrine Pickle, and Ferret in Sir Launcelot Greaves. Sir Thomas is a "satirist" who delights in ridiculing the folly and stupidity of "mankind." He even manages to play a practical joke upon Lismahago, but Lismahago returns the compliment and manages to ridicule Sir Thomas. Jery comments: "I have seen a tame bear, very I diverting when properly managed, become a very dangerous i jwild beast when teased for the entertainment of the specta tor s. Neither Bramble nor Jery approves of Sir Thomas jBulford’s way of life, and Lismahago*s attack upon him I indicates clearly that such "satirists" are themselves guilty of the same sort of folly and stupidity they expose !in others. I I The climax of the final episode— and of the novel— i jcomes when Bramble*s coach is overturned in a river and i jHumphry Clinker saves Bramble*s life. Immediately after 159ibid.> XII, 1B3-1S4. 160Ibid.. XII, 196. 282 this event Bramble discovers that Humphry is his son, and, as William Park phrases it, "Only by acknowledging Clinker • • • does Bramble . . . once and for all overcome his peevishness. Only after this confession does a healthy Bramble, who will no longer need physic, restore the Baynard estate and preside over the triple wedding in his family."xax Park might also have pointed out that it is only after Bramble has acknowledged Clinker as his son that he sees a true example of the good life to counteract the spurious pictures of the "good life" provided by such char acters as Lord Oxmington, Mr. Baynard, and Sir Thomas Bulford. Bramble’s old friend Charles Dennison, who turns out to be the father of Lydia’s sweetheart, "Wilson," is a jman who has created the good life for himself; Bramble jsummarizes Dennison’s history: i Our old friend, who had the misfortune to be a second brother, was bred to the law, and even called to the bar; but he did not find himself qualified to shine in that province, and had very little inclination for his i profession. He disobliged his father by marrying for | love, without any consideration of fortune; so that he [ had little or nothing to depend upon for some years but ! his practice, which afforded him a bare subsistence; ! and the prospect of an increasing family began to give | him disturbance and disquiet. In the meantime, his j father dying, was succeeded by his elder brother, a fox-hunter and a sot, who neglected his affairs, insulted and oppressed his servants, and in a few years had well-nigh ruined the estate, when he was happily carried off by a fever, the immediate consequence of a debauch. Charles, with the approbation of his wife, immediately determined to quit business, and retire into | the country, although this resolution was strenuously I . 6litFa- t J] iera an^ Sons— Humphry Clinker." p. 172. 2d3 and zealously opposed by every individual whom he con sulted on the subject. Those who had tried the experiment assured him, that he could not pretend to breathe in the country for less than the double of what his estate produced; that, in order to be upon the footing of a gentleman, he would be obliged to keep horses, hounds, carriages, with a suitable number of servants, and maintain an elegant table for the enter tainment of his neighbours; that farming was a mystery known only to those who had been bred up to it from the cradle, the success of it depending not only upon skill and industry, but also upon such attention and economy as no gentleman could be supposed to give or practice A long account is given of how Dennison managed to overcome all the objections offered to his scheme of rural j retirement and of how he managed to establish a beautiful and productive estate. Bramble moralizes at length upon the significance of Dennison’s success, and concludes that any man could succeed in a similar manner if it were not for the jtwin demons of vanity and pride. Bramble deplores the horrors of vanity in the following terms: | There cannot be in nature a more contemptible figure than that of a man who, with five hundred a year, ! presumes to rival in expense a neighbour who possesses five times that income. His ostentation, far from con- ! cealing, serves only to discover his indigence, and render his vanity the more shocking; for it attracts the eyes of censure, and excites the spirit of inquiry. There is not a family in the county, nor a servant in his own house, nor a farmer in the parish, but what knows the utmost farthing that his lands produce; and all these behold him with scorn or compassion. I am surprised that these reflections do not occur to persons in this unhappy dilemma, and produce a salutary effect. But the truth is, of all the passions incident to human nature, vanity is that which most effectually perverts the faculties of the understanding nay, it sometimes 162Works. ed. Maynadier, XII, 220-221. 2$4 becomes so incredibly depraved, as to aspire at infamy and find pleasure in bearing the stigmas of reproach.i°3 By "rescuing” his friend Baynard, Bramble puts into action his theory concerning the proper way to live the good life. The vain and extravagant Mrs. Baynard conveniently dies— as Bramble phrases it, " . . . Heaven could not have interposed more effectually to rescue him from disgrace and ruin."1^ Bramble reports that after Mrs. Baynard*s death, Baynard " . . . vested me with full authority over his household, jwhich I began to exercise without loss of time. • . ."-^5 Bramble then discharges most of Baynard*s servants, sells all of the extravagant furniture and clothing belonging to Mrs. Baynard, and sets up a system of economy very similar to that practiced by Charles Dennison when he transformed I his ruined estate into a beautiful and productive place. jThe Baynard affair thus ends with great hope on Bramble’s I ipart: "In less than a year, I make no doubt but he will | 'find himself perfectly at ease, both in his mind and body, for the one had dangerously affected the other; and I shall enjoy the exquisite pleasure of seeing my friend rescued from misery and contempt ."-^6 The Baynard affair is significant because it shows clearly that there is a strong relationship between moral and emotional health and physical health. As we have seen, I 163Ibid.. XII, 223-224. 16/fIbid., XI, 251. 165lbid., XII, 252. 166Ibid.. XI, 266. 2 35 Bramble’s own physical condition has improved as he has actively lived the good life, and his final comment upon his own health indicates that this process will continue; he informs Dr. Lewis that You must also employ your medical skill in defending me from attacks of the gout, that I may be in good case to receive the rest of our company, who promise to visit us in their return from Bath. As I have laid in a considerable stock of health, it is to be hoped that you will not have much trouble with me in the way of physic, but I intend to work you on the side of exer cise. I have got an excellent fowling piece from Mr. Lismahago, who is a keen sportsman, and we shall take the heath in all weathers. That this scheme of life may be prosecuted the more effectually, I intend to renounce all sedentary amusements, particularly that of writing long letters. • . .1&' Not only has Bramble become happy and content by the end of the novel, but also, as Jery observes, even Lismahago has become cheerful as a result of his impending marriage to 'Tabitha: "His temper, which had been soured and shrivelled by disappointment and chagrin, is now swelled out and j smoothed like a raisin in plum-porridge. From being reserved and punctilious, he is become easy and oblig ing."1^® Not only does Smollett have Jery say that Lismahago is well on his way to becoming a happy, content, and useful citizen, but furthermore his fictional technique enables him to demonstrate that Lismahago, like Bramble, will lead j - - jan active and productive life rather than a passive and 167Ibid.. XII, 267. l6®Ibid.. XII, 260. 236 sedantary one. No critic has ever given a satisfactory account of the frame device, the two introductory letters, !with which Smollett begins his final novel. Leon V. Driskell’s study of this frame device concludes: Once the Dustwich-Davis letters are permitted to dis- j turb the seeming equilibrium of the happy world of Tobias Smollett, the novel is invested with irony. Apparently included to augment the book’s credibility, those early letters raise far more questions than they answer— not the least of which is who is Jonathan Dustwich? The narrative frame, regardless of the answer to this particular question, makes it quite clear that all is not perfect yet in Eden and that the equa tion of appearance with reality leads to disenchant ment.1^ jDriskell suggests that Dustwich might actually be Humphry C l i n k e r , but offers no convincing evidence to support such a thesis; Dustwich reveals himself to be a pedantic, jself-centered fool and is in almost every way the antithesis :of Clinker. Actually, the effect of these opening letters is to demonstrate that Lismahago finally achieves a proper place in life as a result of his union with the Bramble family. As Jonathan Dustwich offers the letters for sale, jhe mentions the fact that Justice Lismahago has threatened him with bodily harm if he publishes the letters: j . . . concerning the personal resentment of Mr. Justice Lismahago, I may say . . . I would not willingly I vilipend any Christian, if peradventure he deserveth j that epithet. Albeit I am much surprised that more I care is not taken to exclude from the commission all 169»Looking for Dustwich," Texas Studies in Litera ture and Language. IX (1966), 90. iVOibid., p. 37. 2&7 such vagrant foreigners as may be justly suspected of disaffection to our happy constitution in Church and State.— God forbid that I should be so uncharitable, as to affirm positively that the said Lismahago is no better than a Jesuit in disguise; but this I will assert and maintain . . . that from the day he qualified, he has never been once seen . . . within the parish church.171 If we recall that Lismahago was trained as a lawyer; that he jproved to be a staunch defender of the constitution of Church and State in his arguments with Bramble; and that he asserted that Englishmen would always have an irrational fear and hatred of foreigners— especially the Scots— then this letter by Dustwich is actually a vindication of both Lismahago and his ideas and opinions. Contrary to what jDriskell says, this frame device indicates that all is Imperfect in Eden," or at least nearly so; a world in which men like Lismahago are in positions of power and authority, and can stand up to pedantic, fatuous idiots such as j jDustwich, is not a bad world at all. 1 It is appropriate that Smollett gives the final word | in his novel to Winifred Jenkins, just as James Joyce gives jthe final word in Ulysses to Molly Bloom. Robert A. Donovan has pointed out of Winifred that More purely than any other character she embodies the comic spirit of the novel, for unlike Matthew, or Tabitha, or even Jery or Lydia, her experience is never touched by the tragic or pathetic, not even the potentially tragic or pathetic, and she is allowed the | final word in the novel as she extends her magnificent i offer of patronage to her erstwhile peer, assuring the 171Works. ed. Maynadier, XI, 2. 288 reader more convincingly than Mr. Bramble*s confidence in his ’cure,* that all’s right with the world.172 Winifred herself believes that she is very close to the "tragic" when she believes that the fact the Humphry Clinker is Matthew Bramble’s son will prevent him from marrying her; she writes to Mary Jones: Mr. Clinker is found to be a pye-blow of our own squire, and his right naam is Mr. Matthew Loyd, (thof God he nose how that can be,) and he is now out of livery, and wares ruffles; but I new him when he was out at elbows, and had not a rag to kiver his pistereroes, so he need not hold his head so high. He is for sartin very umble and compleasant, and purtests as how he has the same regard as before, but that he is no longer his own master, and cannot portend to marry without the squire’s consent; he says we must wait with patience, and trust to Providence, and such nonsense. But if so be as how his regard be the same, why stand shilly shally? Why not strike while the iron is hot, and speak to the squire without loss of time? What subjection can the squire make to our coming together? Thof my father wan’t a gentleman, my mother was an honest woman. I | didn’t come on the wrong side of the blanket, girl, i My parents were married according to the rights of holy j mother crutch, in the face of men and angels. Mark that, Mary Jones.173 I jOnce she is safely married to Clinker, however, Win writes i to Mary Jones as follows: Mrs. Jones,— Providinch hath bin pleased to make great halteration in the pasture of our affairs. We were yesterday three kiple chined by the grease of God, in the holy bands of mattermoney; and I now subscrive myself Loyd at your sarvice. . . . Now, Mrs. Mary, our satiety is to supperate. . . . Being, by God’s blessing, removed to a higher spear, you’ll excuse my being familiar with the lower sarvants of the family; but as I trust you’ll behave respectful, and keep a 172yhe Shaping Vision, p. 131. 173Works. ed. Maynadier, XII, 247 239 proper distance, you may always depend upon (mjF] good will and purtection. • • ,!74 A world in which Winifred is safely married to Humphry, Lydia to young Dennison, and Tabitha to Lismahago; in which Matthew Bramble actively lives the good life; and in which Jery learns from and Imitates his uncle, is basically a good world. Smollett’s final comment on life is that it can be rich, and beautiful, and good, and in making that final comment he has ended a novel which is itself rich, and beautiful, and good. Wibid.. XII, 263-269. CHAPTER VI CONCLUSION The preceding chapters have presented much evidence in support of the two propositions stated in the Introduc tion to this study. It is clear that the concept of the good life is indeed an important concern in Smollett*s fiction, and it is also clear that Smollett’s development as an artist can properly be understood and evaluated in terms of the development of his ability to present that concept clearly, forcefully, and effectively. This study has pro vided a new reading of each of Smollett’s novels from what i jhas proved to be a very useful point of view. Furthermore, Jexamination of the novels in chronological order has made it possible for this study to provide a comprehensive account jof Smollett’s development as an artist. The evidence pre sented in this study provides the basis for the conclusions stated in the following paragraphs. First of all, it is clear that much of the confusion and inaccuracy which characterize Smollett’s critical repu tation can be traced specifically to a failure on the part of most critics to realize that Smollett’s purpose is always i didactic and moral, and that he recommends specific virtues and values as correctives to the widespread evil and 291 corruption which he attacks. Chapter I of this study has presented evidence that criticism of Smollett is at its best when it takes full account of these important facts. Critics who have classified Smollett as merely a "humorist," a "satirist," or a "picaresque novelist" have been unable fully to account for and to evaluate his achievement. The evidence presented in this study indicates that Smollett’s view of life is complex and sophisticated; consequently any attempt to dismiss him as some sort of narrow specialist is liable to be inaccurate and unconvincing. It is useful to classify Roderick Random as a Bildungsroman. Peregrine Pickle as a "picaresque" novel, Ferdinand Count Fathom as a "Gothic" novel, Sir Launcelot Greaves as a "novel of ideas," |and Humphry Clinker as an "epistolary" novel only so long as i jsuch classifications are broadly descriptive rather than ] inarrowly definitive. Smollett’s true goals, from the [beginning to the end of his career, are (A) to show the [world of his time as it really is— and to judge and evaluate | (what he shows, and (B) to offer correctives and improve ments for the evils and weaknesses which he finds. | Chapter II of this study presents evidence which (indicates that Smollett’s first novel, Roderick Random, does jan excellent job of achieving the first of the two goals listed above. Random provides a vivid personal account of life in the British Navy at the time of the Carthagena Expedition, and this novel also gives a rather detailed and 292 extensive survey of life in London and Bath during the 1730fs and 1740rs. Smollett finds much cruelty, corruption, and misery in each of the three principal settings which he examines, and he attributes these unhappy conditions chiefly to the fact that incompetent, brutal, and capricious men are in positions of leadership and authority. There is no reason to believe that the grim picture which Smollett paints is inaccurate as far as basic facts are concerned, although it may well be that to some extent he exaggerates and distorts in order to make his point more forcefully and effectively. In any case, the evidence presented in this study indicates that the major weakness of Roderick Random jis the fact that the evil in life is presented too convinc ingly, and the good is not presented convincingly enough. I lln other words, Smollett does not completely and effectively j [accomplish his second major goal in Roderick Random. [Roderick's experiences are supposed to prepare him for a position as a strong, benevolent, effective leader who will be the antithesis of the many incompetent, brutal, capri cious leaders who are shown to be primarily responsible for (the sorry state of the world. However, at the conclusion of Roderick Random, the reader is not convinced that such [preparation actually has taken place. Throughout the novel, i [the details of what constitutes the good life are presented in terms of generalities and vague ideals rather than in terms of specific conditions and actions. 293 Important changes in purpose and point of view make it possible for Smollett to come much closer to accom- jplishing both of his major goals in his second novel. This jis true even though Smollett included in Peregrine Fickle a considerable body of extraneous material which seriously damages the novel's structure. Pickle is a study of char acter development rather than, like Random, a history of a young man of fixed character. In Pickle Smollett employs the third-person point of view, and this fact allows him to achieve greater objectivity concerning the character and personality of his protagonist than did his use of the first-person point of view in Random. Whereas the emphasis in Random was upon Roderick's attainment of worldly exper ience and financial security, the emphasis in Pickle is upon |the development of Peregrine's character. These important |differences between Smollett's first and second novels show jthat he had learned to think more critically about the [ jpossible correctives and improvements for the evils and i jweaknesses he sees in the world of his time. This is true leven though in Peregrine Pickle Smollett comes dangerously close to recommending, as an alternate form of the good life, an extremely narrow, nihilistic attitude toward those j jevils and weaknesses. In Pickle he introduces Cadwallader Crabtree, the "misanthropic satirist” who devotes his life to exposing the corruption, folly, and stupidity of mankind, and it is clear that Smollett's feelings about a career 294 such as Crabtree*s are ambivalent— even though he ultimately rejects such a career as an alternate form of the good life. All in all, Pickle is a much more complex and sophisticated novel than is Random; each of the two works gives a detailed land comprehensive picture of Smollett’s world, but Pickle | gives a more plausible program for making that world better. i jThis program for reform is not completely satisfactory, however, and Smollett’s mixed feelings toward the outlook on life represented by Crabtree are clear evidence of this fact. Smollett’s third novel, Ferdinand Count Fathom, should properly be viewed as an utter failure on Smollett’s part to accomplish the second of his two major goals. The evidence presented in this study shows that Fathom is a i [sentimental, unconvincing fairy-tale which asserts that good will always triumph and that evil will always defeat itself. i i Fathom does give a detailed picture of the world of trick- jsters and petty criminals, but the solutions offered for the i various problems identified in the novel are unrealistic and junconvincing. In short, Ferdinand Count Fathom contributes i jvery little to the development of the concept of the good life in Smollett’s fiction. Smollett’s last two novels, Sir Launcelot Greaves jand Humphry Clinker, are rich, complex works in which he is able to achieve each of his major goals in a thorough and satisfying manner. The evidence presented in this study 295 indicates that there are three important reasons why Smollett was able to accomplish these goals fully and effectively in these final works: (1) the improvement of Smollett*s style and the broadening of his interests and knowledge during his many years of "Grub Street” labor; (2) the shift of emphasis in these last two novels from accounts of preparation for the good life to studies of the good life in action; and (3) the return on Smollett*s part to the idea, first put forward in Peregrine Pickle, that the development of proper character traits— and a proper outlook on life— by the prospective leader of the good life is the key factor in determining whether or not the good life will be established. It is only in his final two novels that jSmollett concentrates upon the question of how the good life ishould be lived rather than upon the question of what steps ;are necessary in order to achieve the good life. The levidence presented in this study shows that the biting ! satire and the detailed criticism of social and moral lvalues which characterize Smollett’s first three novels are made possible by the fact that Smollett has in mind alter- i inatives to the conditions and practices which he attacks. j I If Roderick is allowed to assume his proper place in life, 1 jif Peregrine develops the proper character traits, and if jFerdinand Fathom repents and atones for his crimes, then the good life is possible for each of them. At the conclusions of each of Smollett’s first three novels, these conditions 296 have been met— but we never actually see the good life in action. However, the protagonists of Smollett*s last two novels, Sir Launcelot Greaves and Matthew Bramble, are already in positions to live the good life when the novels begin, and the emphasis in these works is upon the problem of how the good life can be lived most fully and effec tively. Smollett shows that benevolence and reason are the two qualities which are necessary if the good life is to be lived fully and effectively; both Greaves and Bramble possess the former quality in abundance— but each is deficient in the latter. The problem for Sir Launcelot Greaves is the fact that he allows his benevolence— his love of his fellow men |and his desire to help them— to dominate and subvert his i |reason— his sense of what is and what is not possible, and of the proper methods for making justice and truth prevail. His temporary "madness,1 1 represented by his knight-errantry, jis actually a metaphor which expresses the fact that he is i junable to see the proper steps and methods which will enable jhim to counteract the widespread misery, evil, and corrup tion which he sees in the world. His ability to see those proper steps and methods improves steadily during the course of the novel, and he ultimately achieves a proper balance between reason and benevolence. Similarly, Matthew Bramble*s physical ailments and sedentary habits have soured his disposition and caused him to doubt the efficacy 297 of his own benevolent actions; like Sir Launcelot, he is , f madn in the sense that his own weakness and lack of per spective make it impossible for him to live and enjoy the good life fully and effectively* Once his health begins to improve, his disposition improves also— and he is able ultimately to live the good life. The evidence presented in this study indicates, then, that Smollett was able to achieve each of his major goals fully and effectively in his final two novels. Sir Launcelot Greaves and Humphry Clinker provide detailed and extensive surveys of life in eighteenth-century England, and they also present sensible and well-reasoned suggestions for eliminating the many personal weaknesses and social, political, and moral evils which they identify. Smollett’s social theories and political ideals mark him as very much a mein of his time; to Smollett the good life simply is not possible without effective leaders— which means, of course, independent country gentlemen like Greaves and Bramble— but in holding this opinion Smollett is no different from many of his contemporaries. Given the social, economic, political, and educational systems pictured in Smollett’s novels, it is clear that the character and personality of the individual leader is the key to the establishment of the good life. Smollett’s final two novels assert that a proper balance between reason and benevolence is essential to such leaders; in other words, he recommends intelligence and love. This is, of course, a very simple formula for naking the world a better place— but Smollett’s final two novels do not merely state that intelligence and love are necessary. These works show in detail why a proper balance between intelligence and love is essential, and how that balance can be achieved; and— most importantly— they give a beautiful and satisfying picture of what results when an individual leader achieves the needed balance that makes possible the good life. BIBLIOGRAPHY- Allen, Walter. The English Novel. New York: E. P. Dutton and Company, 1954. Alter, Robert. Fielding and the Nature of the Novel. Cam bridge, Mass.: Harvard tJniversity Press, 1968. ________. "The Picaroon as Fortune’s Plaything." Essays on the Eighteenth-Century Novel. Edited by Robert D. Spector. Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana University Press, 1965. ________. Rogue’s Progress. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1964• Baker, Ernest A. The History of the English Novel. 10 vols. London: H. F. and G. Witherby, 1930. Baker, Sheridan. "Humphry Clinker as Comic Romance." Essays on the Eighteenth-Century Novel. Edited by Robert ID. Spector. Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana University Press, 1965. Barth, John. Afterword to Roderick Random by Tobias Smollett. New York! The New American Library, 1964. Battestin, Martin C. "On the Contemporary Reputations of Pamela. Joseph Andrews, and Roderick Random: Remarks by an ’Oxford Scholar,* 1748." Notes and Queries. CCXIII (196S), 450-452. Blanchard, Frederic T. Fielding the Novelist. New York: Russell and Russell, 1966. Bloch, Tuvia. "Smollett’s Quest for Form." Modern Philology. LXV (1967), 103-113. Boege, F. W. Smollett’s Reputation as a Novelist. Prince ton, N. J.: Princeton University Press, 1947. Boggs, W. Arthur. "Dialectal Ingenuity in Humphry Clinker." Papers on English Language and Literature. I (1965). 327-3*7. 299 .. _ 300 ________• "A Win Jenkins Lexicon.” Bulletin of the New York Public Library. LXVIII (1963), 323-330. jBoswell, James. Boswell*s London Journal. 1762-1763. j Edited by Frederick A. Pottle. New York: McGraw- | Hill Book Company, 1950. ________• The Life of Samuel Johnson. London: Oxford University Press, 1953* Brander, Laurence. Tobias Smollett. London: British Book Council, 195TI Bruce, Donald. Radical Doctor Smollett. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1965• Buck, Howard S. Smollett as Poet. New Haven: Yale Uni versity Press, 1927. ________• A Study in Smollett. Chiefly "Peregrine Pickle.” New Haven: Yale University Press, 1925. Chandler, Frank W. The Literature of Roguery. 2 vols. Boston: Houghton, Mifflin and Company, 1907. Clifford, James L. Introduction to Peregrine Pickle by Tobias Smollett. London: Oxford University Press, | 1964. 'Cross, Wilbur L. The History of Henry Fielding. 3 vols. | New York: Russell and Russell, 19&3. Daiches, David. A Critical History of English Literature. j 2 vols. New York: The Ronald Press Company, I960. Donovan, Robert A. The Shaping Vision. Ithaca, N. Y.: Cornell University Press, I966. Priskell, Leon V. "Looking for Dustwich." Texas Studies in Literature and Language. IX (1966), 65-90. Duncan, Jeffrey L. "The Rural Ideal in Eighteenth-Century Fiction." Studies in English Literature. VIII (1966), 517-535. Engel, Monroe. Foreword to Humphry Clinker by Tobias Smollett. New York: The New American Library, I960. Evans, David L. "Humphry Clinker: Smollett*s Tempered Augustanism." Criticism. IX (1967), 257-274. 301 Foster, James R. History of the Pre-Romantic Novel in England, ftew York: Modern Language Association, 1949. ______ • "Smollett’s Pamphleteering Foe Shebbeare." PMLA LVII (1942), 1053-1100. ---- iFrye. Northrup. Anatomy of Criticism. New York: Atheneum. 1966. ______ . "Specific Continuous Forms." Approaches to the Novel. Edited by Robert Scholes. San Francisco: Chandler Publishing Company, 1961. Garrow, Scott. "A Study of the Organization of Smollett’s The Expedition of Humphry Clinker." Southern Quarterly.~ W (1966). 349-364. and V "(l9' 66), 22-46. Gassman, Byron. "The Briton and Humphry Clinker." Studies in English Literature. Ill (1962), 397-414. ______ . "Religious Attitudes in the World of Humphry Clinker." Brigham Young University Studies. Vl (1964)t 65-72. Giddings, Robert. The Tradition of Smollett. London: Methuen and Company, 1967. |Goldberg, M. A. Smollett and the Scottish School. Albu- | querque: University of New Mexico Press, 1959. Green, Frederick C. Literary Ideas in Eighteenth Century France and England. New York: Frederick Ungar Publishing Company, 1966. Hatfield, Glenn W., Jr. "Quacks, Pettyfoggers, and Parsons: Fielding’s Case Against the Learned Professions." Texas Studies in Literature and Language. IX (1967), 69-83. Hazlitt, William. Lectures on the English Comic Writers. The Complete Works of William Hazlitt. Edited by A. R. Waller and Arnold Glouer. Vol'. VI. New York: AMS Press, 1967. Hopkins, Robert. "The Function of Grotesque in Humphry Clinker." Huntington Library Quarterly. XXxII '(1969), 163-177. ------ ^ ---------- 302 Humphreys, A. R. "Fielding and Smollett." From Dryden to Johnson. Vol. IV of The Pelican Guide to English Literature. Edited by Boris Ford. 7 vols. Balti more: Penguin Books, 1965. Hunt, Leigh. Leigh Hunt’s Political and Occasional Essays. Edited by L. H. and C. W. Houtchens. New York: Columbia University Press, 1962. Iser, Wolfgang. "The Generic Control of the Aesthetic Response: An Examination of Smollett’s Humphry Clinker." Southern Humanities Review. Ill (1963), 243-257. Kahrl, George M. Tobias Smollett: Traveler-Novelist. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1945. Knapp, Lewis M. Introduction to Humphry Clinker by Tobias Smollett. London: Oxford University Press, 1966. ___ . "The Naval Scenes in Roderick Random." PMLA. XLIX (1934), 593-596. ________. "Smollett’s Self-Portrait in The Expedition of Humphry Clinker." The Age of Johnson: Essays "Pre sented to Chauncev B. Tinker! New Haven: Yale University Press, 1949. ________, and Lillian de la Torre. "Smollett, MacKercher, and the Annesley Claimant." English Language Notes. I (1963), 23-33*----------------------------------- _______ . Tobias Smollett: Doctor of Men and Manners. New York: Russell and jRussell, 1963. Knight, Grant C. The Novel in English. New York: Farrar and Rinehart, 1935* Lamb, Charles. The Letters of Charles Lamb. Edited by E. V. Lucas. 3 vols. London: J. M. Dent and Sons, 1.935. Linsalata, Carmine R. Smollett’s Hoax: Don Quixote in English. New York: AMs' Press, 1967. McKillop, Alan D. The Early Masters of English Fiction. Lawrence, Kans.: University of Kansas Press, 1956. ________. English Literature from Dryden to Burns. New York!Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 1948. 303 Martz, Louis L. The Later Career of Tobias Smollett. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1942. 1 ________• "Smollett and the Expedition to Carthagena." PMLA. LVI (1941), 423-446. Maynadier, G. H. Introduction to Sir Launcelot Greaves by- Tobias Smollett. Vol. X of The Works of Tobias Smollett. Edited by G. H. Maynadier. New York: ¥he Atheneum Society, 1902. Mayo, Robert D. The English Novel in the Magazines. 1740- 1315. Evanston, 111.: Northwestern University Press, 1962. Melchiori, Giorgio. The Tightrope Walkers. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1956. Melville, Lewis. The Life and Letters of Tobias Smollett. | Port Washington, N. Y.: The Kennikat Press, 1966. 1 i Miller, Stuart. The Picaresque Novel. Cleveland: The Press of Case Western Reserve University, 1967. Montagu, Lady Mary Wortley. The Complete Letters of Lady | Mary Wortley Montagu. Edited by Robert Halsband. j 3 vols. Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1967. More, Sir Thomas. Utopia. The Norton Anthology of English Literature. Edited by M. H. Abrams and others. 2 vols. New York: W. W. Norton and Company, 1962. Mossner, Ernest C. The Life of David Hume. Austin: ! University of Texas Press, 1954. Orwell, George. The Collected Essayst Journalism and Letters of George Orwell. Edited by Oonia Orwell and Ian Angus. 4 vols. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, Inc., 1963. Oxford Dictionary of Quotations. 2nd edition. London: Oxford University Press, 1966. Park, William. "Fathers and Sons— Humphry Clinker." Liter ature and Psychology. XVI (i960), 166-174• Parker, Alexander A. Literature and the Delinquent. Edin burgh: The University tress, 1967. Parker, Alice. "Tobias Smollett and the Law." Studies in Philology. XXXIX (1942), 545-553. 304 Paulson, Ronald. Satire and the Novel in Eighteenth-Century England. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1967. i________. "Satire in the Early Novels of Smollett." Journal of English and Germanic Philology. LIX (I960), 381-402. Piper, William B. "The Large Diffused Picture of Life in i Smollett’s Early Novels." Studies in Philology. LX (1963), 45-56. Preston, Thomas R. "The Good-Natured Misanthrope: A Study in the Satire and Sentiment of the Eighteenth Century." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Rice University, 1962. Pritchett, V. S. The Living Novel and Later Appreciations. New York: Random House, 1964* Putney, Rufus. "The Plan of Peregrine Pickle." PMLA. LX (1945), 1051-1065. ________. "Smollett and Lady Vane’s Memoirs." Philological Quarterly. XXV (1946), 120-126. Rawson, C. J. "Nature’s Dance of Death: Part I: Urbanity and Strain in Fielding, Swift, and Pope." Eighteenth-Century Studies. Ill (1970), 307-33&. i jRead, Herbert. Collected Essays in Literary Criticism. London: Faber and Faber, 193&. Reid, B. L. "Smollett’s Healing Journey." Virginia Quarterly Review. XLI (1964), 549-570. Rousseau, G. S. "Matt Bramble and the Sulphur Controversy in the XVIIIth Century." Journal of the History of Ideas. XXVIII (1967), 577-5^ ________. "Science and the Discovery of the Imagination in | Enlightened England." Eighteenth-Century Studies. Ill (1969), 115-134. Saintsbury, George. The English Novel. London: J. M. Dent and Sons, 1924. Schorer, Mark. "Technique as Discovery." Approaches to the Novel. Edited by Robert Scholes. San Francisco: Chandler Publishing Company, 1961. 305 Scott, Sir Walter. Lives of the Novelists. London: Oxford University Press, 1906. iSena, John F. "Smollett's Persona and the Melancholic Traveller." Eighteenth-Century Studies. I (1967), 353-369. Shepherd, T. B. Methodism and the Literature of the Eighteenth Century. New York: Haskell House, 1966. Sherbo, Arthur. "Win Jenkins* Language." Papers on Lan guage and Literature. V (1969), 199-204. Sherburn, George. "Fielding’s Amelia: An Interpretation." Fielding: A Collection of Critical Essays. Edited by Ronald Paulson. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1962. ________. "The Restoration and Eighteenth Century." A Literary History of England. Edited by Albert C. Baugh. Hew York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 194». Skinner, Mary L. "The Interpolated Story in Selected Novels of Fielding and Smollett." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Tennessee, 196B. [Smollett, Tobias. An Essay on the External Use of Waters. ! Edited by Claude E. Jones. Haltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1935. ________. Letters of Tobias Smollett. Edited by Edward S. Noyes. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1926. ________. The Miscellaneous Works of Tobias Smollett. Edited by Thomas Roscoe. London: Henry G. Bohn, 1B45. ________. The Works of Tobias Smollett. Edited by G. H. Maynadier. 12 vols. Hew York: The Atheneum Society, 1902. Spector, Robert D. Tobias Smollett. New York: Twayne Publishing Company, 1968. Steeves, Harrison R. Before Jane Austen. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1965. 306 Sterne, Lawrence. A Sentimental Journey Through France and ! Italy. Edited by Gardner D. Stout, Jr. Berkeley | and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1967. 1 Stevenson, Lionel. The English Novel: A Panorama. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, I960. |Stevick, Philip. "Stylistic Energy in the Early Smollett." Studies in Philology. LXIV (1967), 712-719. Strauss, Albrecht B. "On Smollett’s Language: A Paragraph in Ferdinand Count Fathom." Style in Prose Fiction: English Institute Essays? 1958. Edited by Harold C. Martin. New Ifork: Columbia University Press, 1959. Swift, Jonathan. Jonathan Swift: A Selection of His Works. Edited by Philip Pinkus. New York: the Odyssey Press, 1965. Tave, Stuart M. The Amiable Humorist. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, I960. Taylor, Archer. "Proverbial Materials in Tobias Smollett, The Adventures of Sir Launcelot Greaves." Southern Polkiore Quarterly. XlxH[ (1957). 85-92. Thackeray, William M. "Hogarth, Smollett, and Fielding." The English Humorists. London: J. M. Dent and Sons, 1912'. Tomlin, E. W. F. "Dickens’s Reputation: A Reassessment." Charles Dickens: 1812-1870: A Centennial Volume. Edited by E. W1 . F. Tomlin. New ¥ork: Simon and Schuster, 1969. Wagenknecht, Edward. Cavalcade of the English Novel. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1943• Wagoner, Mary. "On the Satire in Humphry Clinker." Papers on Language and Literature. IX (1966). 109-115T Webster, Grant T. "Smollett’s Microcosms: A Satiric Device in the Novel." Satire Newsletter. V (1967), 34-37. West, William A. "Matt Bramble’s Journey to Health." Texas Studies in Literature and Language. XI (1969), 1197-1208.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Theory And Practice In The Black Mountain Poets: Duncan, Olson, And Creeley

PDF

A Study Of Images In The Poetry Of Jonathan Swift

PDF

Verbal Ability And Visual Verbal Modes Of Presentation In The Acquisition Of A Poetic Concept

PDF

The Concept Of The 'Mystical Body Of Christ' In Selected Poems By Gerard Manley Hopkins

PDF

Studies In The Influence Of The 'Commedia Dell'Arte' On English Drama: 1605-1800

PDF

Variant Forms Of English And Scottish Popular Ballads In America

PDF

The Development Of Method And Meaning In The Fiction Of 'Saki' (H. H. Munro)

PDF

The Phenomenon Of Literature: Prolegomena To A Literary History

PDF

An Index And Encyclopedia Of The Characters In The Fictional Works Of William Faulkner

PDF

Christopher Smart As Lyric Poet

PDF

William Morris'S Concepts Of Ideal Human Society As Indicated In Public Lectures, 1877-1894 And In Three Prose Romances, 1886-1890

PDF

An Analysis Of The Philosophical Beliefs Implicit Within General Semantics And Their Relevance For Educational Theory

PDF

A Syntactic Analysis Of The Writing Of Some Fourth-Grade, Fifth-Grade, And Sixth-Grade Caucasian Children In The Los Angeles Schools

PDF

An Analysis Of Selected British Novelists Between 1945 And 1966, And Their Critics

PDF

The Grammar Of English Causative-Transitivity

PDF

Justificationalism Versus Nonjustificationalism In Philosophy: A Critique of The Theory Of Rationality In Karl Popper And W.W. Bartley, Iii

PDF

Imagination And Reality In Wallace Stevens' Prose And Early Poetry

PDF

The Word Within The Word: A Literary Examination Of Lancelot Andrewes' Presentation Of The Life Of Christ

PDF

A Study Of The Origin, Content, And Literary Significance Of The 'Eloges Academiques' Of Jean Le Rond D'Alembert

PDF

The Effects Of Monetary Rewards On Reading Level, Attitude Toward Reading, And Self-Concept Of Ability And School Achievement

Asset Metadata

Creator Cheever, Leonard Alfred (author)

Core Title The Good Life: The Development Of A Concept In Smollett'S Novels

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program English

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag Literature, General,OAI-PMH Harvest

Language English

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Advisor Winterowd, W. Ross (committee chair), Engel, S. Morris (committee member), Templeman, William D. (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c18-548389

Unique identifier UC11362062

Identifier 7206046.pdf (filename),usctheses-c18-548389 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 7206046.pdf

Dmrecord 548389

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Cheever, Leonard Alfred

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA