In Joseph Andrews, Henry Fielding provides an incredibly rich commentary on a variety of topics such as: society, politics, religion, and morality of the 18th century. With the satirical approach, using Pamela by Samuel Richardson as the inspiration, Fielding blends all of these topics into a rich novel. However, for my final paper, I intend to narrow my focus on a political analysis of Joseph Andrews and even Henry Fielding himself.

With how contentious this most recent election became towards the end, I’m of the strong opinion that dissecting a political commentary of the 18th century could be fascinating, especially if I can use this commentary as a means to further understand the political landscape that we have today. In order to begin the first stage of research for my paper, I’m going to look more in-depth into the concept of Parishes and the settlement within them, which was used as a theme towards the end of Joseph Andrews. From there, I will also begin to connect my conclusions from this to the political ideas and divides within our society today. I also intend to use secondary sources, a few of which I’ve already found that might prove useful, in this endeavor.

As a centrist for most of the political topics of today, I really want to use this paper as an opportunity to learn about the merits and criticisms that Fielding had of the 18th century political landscape, and whether they would be classified as either liberal or conservative by today’s standards. This could be a strong point of the paper, and would allow a potential reader to be able to more closely follow my analysis, given that they may already have an opinion on certain aspects of 18th century politics, if provided with appropriate comparisons to issues we face today. From the brief analysis we’ve already had on the system of parishes as they existed in the 18th century, it’s apparent that this system has (by today’s standards) both conservative and liberal beliefs operating within it. So, what would be the criticisms and merits of the parish, and to what extent have the political parties of today learned from this commentary, if at all.

But another question that could come from this topic, aside from one of charity and welfare within a society (or community), could be a critique on the leaders of these parishes, and how they compare to the leaders we have today. Does the critique of politics and the ruling class that shaped it, from the 18th century, provide any further insight into the leaders and their motivations that we find ourselves with today. Have the critiques paved the way for more efficient governing by those in charge, or has the ruling class, whether it was the royalty of the 18th century or the democratically elected officials we have today, changed in name only.

I’m confident with the appropriate secondary sources, and a second reading of the text with a focus on the political aspects of the each scene, I will be able to answer these questions and more in the final paper.

In a short description about the conditions of his life, Tristram Shandy writes briefly about a Duchess named Fortune, more specifically, he tells us: “… That in every stage of my life, and at every turn and corner where she could get fairly at me, the ungracious Duchess has pelted me with a set of as pitiful misadventures and cross accidents as ever small HERO sustained”  (Sterne, 10)

With an already slight understanding of what Tristram is alluding to in this passage, I turn to the footnote for it on page 542. Here we learn that the Romans had a goddess for luck named Fortune (as pictured to the right), and that Sterne is using her as a means to distinguish between the pagan concept of luck (or fortune) and the Christian belief of providence. Unfamiliar of exactly what providence means, I refer to the OED definition for it, and entry 2 states: “The foreknowing and protective care of God (or nature, etc.); divine direction, control, or guidance.” Using this definition, we can now understand why Fortune is being distinguished from providence in the idea that while Fortune may bring feast, she might also bring famine, which is entirely subject to either her whims or what might simply be the random chance of outcome inherent in all events, something we commonly refer to as luck. Yet, providence captures an almost antithesis to our beautiful lady Fortune, encapsulated in the idea that God, with an astounding clairvoyance and a genuine concern for protection, twists events using the divine in the favor of mortals.

So, it is very apt for Tristram to attribute his perceived misfortunes in his life to the account of the Duchess Fortune. Yet, he also chooses to lay blame on her in a very respectful manner, as if to acknowledge her responsibility in the events that have pelted him, but also excuse her of blame by saying she has played her part in the shaping of these events most fairly. Tristram also believes that although Fortune’s influence may not have been kind to him, he would be wrong to believe that he felt any great evil or malice from her. Tristram creates an almost reoccurring theme within the beginning of his novel of how his life is filled with misfortune and calamity because of the actions of others. From even the first page, we read that Tristram lays blame on his parents’ poorly executed night of his conception, and here, Tristram even goes as far as to bring in supernatural and spiritual forces as the reason for his woe. But, the marked difference that can be found from the blame he lays on his parents and the blame he places on Fortune, is his vindication and perhaps even forgiveness towards Fortune for whatever role she might have played, something I didn’t see articulated for his parents. And with the footnote to make one final observation, Tristram might simply be using the idea of Fortune as a means to create a comparison for the belief that he would have much rather seen providence shape his life and the events within, than a capricious Roman goddess.

The illuminations of the word sublime provided by Edmund Burke in A Philosophical Inquiry Into The Origin Of Our Ideas Of The Sublime And Beautiful imbues me with an entirely new way of observing some of the actions and situations that our protagonist, Theodore, is involved in in the Gothic Novel The Castle of Otranto by Henry Walpole.

Burke relates to us: “The passion caused by the great and sublime in nature, when those causes operate most powerfully, is Astonishment; and astonishment is that state of the soul, in which all its motions are suspended, with some degree of horror” (132). With this quote, I now turn to page 30 in Otranto, where our young peasant Theodore has just arrived at the scene of a most grim death of a boy named Conrad. Unfortunately for Theodore, his quick observation of the possible origins for the object that caused this death earns the quick contempt of Conrad’s father, Manfred. Suspicious over Theodore’s claims relating to the death, Manfred immediately begins to lay blame on Theodore, even grappling Theodore with a great haste; “The young peasant himself  was still more astonished, not conceiving how he had offended the prince: yet, recollecting himself, … he disengaged himself from Manfred’s grip”  (Walpole 30). This moment captures perfectly what Burke means by astonishment, Theodore is, but for a moment, overcome by either fear or disbelief at the sudden actions of Manfred, and unable to immediately act against his aggressor without first recollecting himself.

Burke also explores another topic within his essay, and that is the effect of obscurity on the mind and the powerful feelings associated with the possibility that something could be, when one is unable to completely verify the authenticity of it or the danger it might posses; “To make any things very terrible, obscurity seems in general to be necessary. When we know the full extent of any danger … a great deal of the apprehension vanishes” (133). To elucidate my connection with this to Otranto, let us turn to page 47 – 48, where Manfred’s daughter, Matilda, is conversing about the days horrific events with her servant, Bianca. Yet in the midst of this conversation, an odd voice can be heard, much to confusion of both Matilda and Bianca. With further deduction, they soon locate the voice to what would be an otherwise unoccupied chamber beneath them. With the obscurity of the origins for the voice gripping Bianca’s mind, she soon falls victim to the wildest thoughts of the supernatural and surrenders herself to the paralysis that would prevent her from discovering the true answer behind it. “”Oh! dear lady, I would not speak to a ghost for the world!” cried Bianca (Walpole 48). Fortunately for Bianca, Matilda is brave enough to call to the ghost and ascertain it’s true identity, a young peasent by the name of Theodore, resolving the obscurity and putting Bianca’s fears to rest. With this use of obscurity to create tension and apprehension, Walpole makes a great case for the ideas presented by Burke. Because Bianca is left to dwell on her thoughts to the mystery of the voice, obscurity grows and her fears coalesce to the dread of a possible ghost.