Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Prepare for your exams
Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points to download
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
1 / 26
This page cannot be seen from the preview
Don't miss anything!
Human nature is, in its simplest form and definition, the nature that comes naturally to humans, the thing that is attributed to only themselves without the influence of others or society. Henry Fielding opens up his novel, The History of Tom Jones, A Foundling, by explaining that he would like to explore the topic of human nature through his characters. In Chapter I of Book One, Fielding states that “in Human Nature, tho’ here collected under one general Name, is such prodigious Variety, that a cook will have sooner gone through all the several Species of animal and vegetable Food in the World, than an Author will be able to exhaust so extensive a subject” (36). Fielding understands that human nature is such a wide term that it cannot be explained easily. Although Fielding uses a range of characters to help the reader understand human nature, I shall focus on two characters: Tom Jones and the character that is his opposite, a man that helps to highlight the great characteristics that Tom possesses, the Man of the Hill. Tom, the protagonist, goes through a series of life changing events that test his patience, morality, and most importantly, his faith in humanity. During his journey, Tom encounters a character that sparks a gradual change in his own disposition, the Man of the Hill. Out of all the fascinating people Tom has encountered on his journey, the Man of the Hill is the only one that has gone through similar life experiences as Tom, including betrayal, societal disadvantages, and relationship problems, to name a few. Although they both seem to share the same history, they have ended up on very different paths of life. The Man of the Hill has isolated himself from humanity, while Tom continues to embrace life and all it has to offer. Looking at Tom Jones throughout the novel, how does he change from the boy that was not ready to commit to anything or anyone to the man he becomes in the end? In examining the Man of the Hill, I am reminded of Jean Jacques Rousseau’s savage from his Discourse on Inequality. The Man of the Hill can be
most handsome, the strongest, the most adroit or the most eloquent became the most highly regarded, and this was the first step towards inequality and at the same time vice” (Rousseau 114). What Rousseau describes can be best characterized as competition. With competition comes pride and ranking. Now people are looking to be the best in all aspects of life. They are no longer worried about only themselves, but also about those around them. Once pride and rankings became part of the state of nature, the state of nature was forever changed. With this change the state of nature began to disappear and society began to form. In his work, Rousseau describes man in the state of nature, the savage. According to Rousseau, man, contrary to the belief of many people and philosophers, lived a peaceful life in the state of nature. It is only when the inequalities and vices were introduced that man started to get violent, cruel and bloodthirsty. Rousseau states that “it is for lack of having sufficiently distinguished between different ideas and seen how far those peoples already are from the first state of nature that so many authors have hastened to conclude that man is naturally cruel and needs civil institutions to make him peaceable” (115). The savage was a solitary man who depended on no but himself. That is why the state of nature was one of peace because man only worried about himself, and did not care about others. Even the act of intercourse was viewed as an inconvenience. They “quietly [await] the impulse of nature, [respond] to it involuntarily with more pleasure, than frenzy; and once the need is satisfied, all desire is extinguished” (103). They participated in the act of intercourse not because they wanted to but because nature compelled them. The act was like anything else in this natural state, something that was necessary to continue on with everyday life. No one worried about those around them, no matter their relationship. Once man started to stray from this simple way of life and want more, that is when
the state of nature was no longer pure. The path that led away from the state of nature and to the beginnings of society is what people remember about the state of nature. They only remember the vicious road that finally got them to their current state, society. The vice that Rousseau speaks of—the vice (vanity, envy, shame, and scorn) that was introduced at the same time as the inequalities—is seen throughout the history of the Man of the Hill. In the retelling of his history, the reader can see the differences between Tom and the Man of the Hill. Tom Jones looks at the positives of every misfortune, while the Man of the Hill has grown bitter and has retreated from society because of his misfortunes. These misfortunes can all be tied back to his days at Oxford, where he encountered vice. While studying at Oxford, the Man of the Hill met another student, Sir George, that “had a great Delight in destroying and ruining the Youth of inferior Fortune, by drawing them into Expenses which they could not afford as well as himself; and the better, and worthier, and soberer, any young Man was, the greater Pleasure and Triumph had he in his Destruction” (Fielding 398). Sir George, a man who enjoyed seeing others suffer, was able to cause such suffering because of the inequalities society has created. The Man of the Hill had the misfortune to fall into the clutches of Sir George, and was taken in by his ploy of friendship and riches. Although the Man of the Hill enjoyed studying he also enjoyed doing other things that would bring him great joy and pleasure. The Man of the Hill does not specify the things, but his point is nevertheless made. The Man of the Hill was an easy target for Sir George because he “was high mettled, had a violent Flow of animal Spirits, was a little ambitious, and extremely amorous” (Fielding 398). In other words, the Man of the Hill was a very passionate man and would let his passions get the best of him, just like his current companion, Tom. The Man of the Hill’s good friend, Sir George, had the fortune to
away alone. He left Oxford with a female companion and “the first movements of the heart were the effect of this new situation” (Rousseau 112). The Man on the Hill and his woman headed to London, and he soon grew very fond of his woman, but the funds he had stolen had diminished. And as Rousseau says, the “women became more sedentary and accustomed themselves to looking after the hut and the children while the men went out to seek their common subsistence” (112). Rousseau explains that once men and women began to depend on each other, the body and the mind began to weaken. The problem was that only the Man of the Hill was dependent. He had fallen in love with this woman, and his mind was weakened because of this love. He could not see that the woman he had fallen in love with was only with him for his money he currently possessed, and when that money was gone, she looked for other ways to make up the missing capital—not to help the Man of the Hill, who was desperately trying to find a way to make his love happy—but for her gain only. Unlike the Man of the Hill, the woman’s mind was still strong because she was not emotionally attached to the Man of the Hill and she knew what she needed to do to survive. While the Man on the Hill was seeking out their subsistence, the woman began to grow impatient. Instead of waiting to see how the man that loved her would support the life of luxury she wanted to live, she contacted an old lover from Oxford and turned in the Man of the Hill. The Man on the Hill had become so dependent on this woman because of his love for her, that he was blinded to her true intentions. He wanted to marry her and start a family. He did not expect her to betray him. The savage was not dependent on anyone but himself, but once the savage entered into society, he had to conform to societal standards. With those societal standards came falling in love with a woman and continuing his blood line. This relationship was supposed to be
reciprocal. The savage and his woman were to be dependent on each other to survive. The Man of the Hill was ready to fulfill his societal duties in regards to a woman, but unlike the savage, the Man of the Hill was not so lucky. The Man of the Hill was emotionally dependent on the woman, while the woman was only fiscally dependent. Though he felt great affection for his woman, she did not feel the same way. It was very easy for her to find other means to support herself. It is not made clear whether she went back to her old lover because he had the funds to support her, or if she only contacted him because there was a bounty on the head of the Man of the Hill that she wanted to acquire. Either way, she did not make herself dependent on the Man of the Hill, and was able to find another way to live the life she was accustomed to when he no longer had money. In this way she was very similar to the Man of the Hill; while at Oxford he also did what he had to in order to live a life he could not afford, and so did she. The Man of the Hill had “regained [his] Liberty...but [he] had lost [his] Reputation; for there is a wide Difference between the Case of a Man who is barely acquitted of a Crime in a Court of Justice, and of him who is acquitted in his own Heart, and in the Opinion of the People” (Fielding 404). Though he gained his freedom in the sense that he was not behind bars, he would never truly be free. In civil society, reputation is so intertwined with identity that his stealing accusation will forever follow him. His reputation was in tatters because of his greed. He wanted to live the luxurious life that Sir George was able to live even though he knew those dreams were lofty. Although he was able to escape being punished by the law, he was being punished by society. All of this could have been avoided if he had just learned to rein in his pride and greed. He wanted to show that he could afford the same luxurious lifestyle that others of higher standing could easily afford, but, like Tom, the Man of the Hill was born into a life of societal
soldiers, both men made it to a little hut where the Man of the Hill was treated by a woman. It was here that Watson left the Man of the Hill and betrayed him to the very soldiers they were hiding from. This is the violation that turns the Man of the Hill into the man Tom encounters. Rousseau explains that “a devouring ambition, the burning passion to enlarge one’s relative fortune, not so much from real need as to put oneself ahead of others, inspires in all men a dark propensity to injure one another, assumes the mask of benevolence in order to do its deeds in greater safety; in a word, there is competition and rivalry on the one hand, conflicts of interests on the other, and always the hidden desire to gain an advantage at the expense of other people” (Rousseau 119). According to Rousseau, man has always felt a need for self preservation. This has always been their first concern, but with the introduction of society there was also the introduction of rivalry. Watson, wanting to protect himself and gain favor with King James’ soldiers betrays the Man of the Hill. Watson turned himself over to the soldiers and exposed the Man of the Hill so that he would not be punished as severely as he would have if the soldiers had found them both on their own. He, like the woman the Man on the Hill loved, were only looking after themselves and only thought of what they would gain by turning in the Man of the Hill. In the society the savages have created for themselves, it is every man or woman for themselves. In order to move up in the world, one must be willing to do what it takes in order to accomplish their goal. It is very possible that Watson was jealous of the success the Man of the Hill found after he left London with his father. This could be another reason that Watson felt the need to betray a man that had been nothing but kind to him. Whatever Watson’s reasoning, this betrayal is what changes the Man of the Hill irrevocably. This final betrayal is what pushes the Man of the Hill over the cliff, unlike Tom Jones, he no longer sees the good in others. He has learned that “being and
appearance [become] to entirely different things, and from this distinction arose insolent ostentation, deceitful cunning and all the vices that follow in their train” (Rousseau 119). In civil society, people judge each other by appearance only and the way a person really is does not necessarily matter. Public outings become an opportunity to show off and to put on a persona different than the one shown to close friends and family. The world outside the home becomes a stage and not everyone is what they seem. People might even have malicious motives but one cannot find out if they’re a friend or enemy until it is too late and the damage is done. This was a hard lesson for the Man of the Hill to learn, because this lesson came with consequences that could have potentially ruined his whole life, some with the potential to even kill him, instead it just ruined his outlook. Because the Man of the Hill had very good fortune, although he might not see it that way, every time he was captured, and about to be imprisoned or put to death, some divine force intervened and he escaped untouched. The Man of the Hill had once again escaped a brutal betrayal relatively uninjured, but unlike the last times, he did not come out of this completely unscathed. He no longer trusted anyone and after escaping the soldiers, made it a point to avoid roads and towns, not because he was hiding from King James’ men, but because he believed that anyone he encountered would betray him. He wandered until he came to the hill that Tom Jones and Partridge find him on, “where the Solitude and Wildness of the Country invited [him] to fix [his] Abode” (Fielding 421). Tom Jones and Partridge encounter the Man of the Hill many years after the unfortunate betrayal, and not only has his attitude changed, but also his appearance. The Man of the Hill really looked the part of the savage Rousseau describes. He “was cloathed with the Skin of an Ass, made something into the Form of a Coat. He wore likewise Boots on his Legs, and a Cap on
removed from them as he would like to believe. This solitary man, among other things, has a maid that cleans and cooks for him. The Man of the Hill says he hates society, but he likes the conveniences that society has made available to him. The savage Rousseau describes relied on no one but himself, and “so long as they applied themselves only to work that one person could accomplish alone and to arts that did not require the collaboration of several hands, they lived as free, healthy, good and happy men so far as they could be according to their nature and they continued to enjoy among themselves the sweetness of independent intercourse” (Rousseau 116). Man, in the state of nature described by Rousseau, is completely free because he relies on no one but himself. He does not need the help of anyone in order to survive in the world. As much as the Man of the Hill would like to believe he is free from societal constraints, he is not. Not only does he have a maid, he also likes to travel and visit different countries in Europe. These countries, with their monuments and statues, were created by the collaboration of many hands. The few things that bring him joy were created by society. Though he might believe otherwise, the Man of the Hill will forever be part of society and the inequalities that come with it. He will never truly know what it feels like to be free because of the hold society has over him. And man will always live “outside himself; he knows how to live only in the opinion of others, it is so to speak, from their judgement alone that he derives the sense of his own existence,” unlike the savage who “lives within himself” (Rousseau 136). It is because of the opinion of others that the Man of the Hill made the decisions that led him on this path. He did not know how to live life within himself, and only now that he has isolated himself from the rest of the world does he seem to have learned to live within himself, like the savage. Although he has learned to live within himself and no longer care about what
others think, he does this by not interacting with anyone and he still goes into the world to enjoy the things society has created. The Man of the Hill proves that man can never fully go back to being the savage Rousseau describes. Rousseau ends the introduction of his Discourse on Inequality stating that “Discontented with your present condition for reasons which presage for your unfortunate posterity even greater discontent, you will wish perhaps you could go backwards in time and this feeling must utter the eulogy of your first ancestors, the indictment of your contemporaries, and the terror of those who have the misfortune to live after you” (79). When looking into the future, people sometimes believe that something better is coming, but in retrospect, the past is sometimes much better than what the future will ever hold. Everyone looks to the future with hope, but sometimes the future holds nothing but disaster. No one sees the truth until it is much too late and turning back is no longer an option. The Man on the Hill wishes to go back to a time where society does not exist, but because he has already been touched by the societal customs of his time, he will never be as free as the savage and never as happy. He will always live in an inbetween state knowing that true happiness exists, but not being able to let go of his societal ties in order to reach it. Although the Man of the Hill makes a valid argument for wanting to return to the state of nature that Rousseau describes, Tom Jones does not agree with him. Tom states at the conclusion of the Man of the Hill’s speech that I believe, as well as hope, that the Abhorrence which you express for Mankind, in the Conclusion, is much to general. Indeed you here fall into Error, which, in my little Experience, I have observed to be a very common one, by taking the Character of Mankind from the worst and basest among them; whereas indeed, as an excellent Writer observes, nothing should be esteemed as characterized of a
by his parents, and a bastard because Jenny Jones was not married at the time of his birth. This stigma still follows him around, and he is constantly under scrutiny because of who is raising him, and although people expect him to be on his best behavior, they also expect the worst because he is a bastard. This is one of the downsides of society that was explained earlier. Like Rousseau stated being and appearance have become to different things in society. People do not know who Tom Jones really is, but they punish him for something that he had no control over. Society has told them that bastards are to be shunned so they do just that. Though, Tom is fortunate in that people do treat him a little better because his benefactor is such an influential man. Because of Allworthy, Tom was given many opportunities, and he has been able to meet many people, including Sophia Western. Sophia Western, a girl the narrator introduces as the heroine of the novel, has grown up with Tom Jones and Blifil, Allworthy’s nephew. She has been able to see both these characters develop throughout their childhood and “when very young, discerned that Tom, tho’ an idle, thoughtless, rattling Rascal, was no body’s Enemy but his own; and that Master Blifil , tho’ a prudent, discreet, sober, young Gentleman, was, at the same Time, strongly attached to the Interest only of one single Person” (Fielding 149). Sophia had insight on both boys that not everyone had. She was able to see how they interacted with each other and with her. Although Sophia may not know this, the reader does know that Blifil is a master at manipulating people into believing he has good intentions. Blifil only worries about himself, while Tom worries about everyone but himself. Not only does Tom worry about the well being of others, but Sophia was right in calling him ‘thoughtless.’ Tom Jones does not think, and he reacts instinctively. Most of the trouble he gets into along his journey is because he does not think before he acts. This
thoughtlessness that Tom possesses rarely hurts anyone but himself. Sophia was accurate in her description of both the boys, especially when she calls Tom his own enemy. His ill considered actions and decisions are what lead him down the path he takes that lead him to the Man of the Hill. Whether or not he is aware of the fact is not made clear right away, but what is made clear is that when he believes his impulsiveness has hurt someone or has ruined someone, he takes full responsibility. The reader sees time and time again how Tom Jones protects those he considers friends and lovers. He protects Black George, his friend and Allworthy’s game keeper, when they were caught hunting on a neighbor’s property. Tom was caught but Black George managed to escape and when asked about his partner, Tom insists that he was alone. His protective nature does not stop at small things like this, but when he finds out he had impregnated Black George’s daughter, Molly, he vows to take care of her and protect her. Coincidentally this is at the same time that Tom realizes his feelings for Sophia, but he pushes his feelings aside to do what is right. These are just a few of the occasions where the reader witnesses Tom’s responsible nature. Albeit his responsible nature after the fact, but responsible none the less. Although Tom is responsible, he is still immature and naive in many respects. He trusts almost everyone he meets on his journey. The narrator states that “every Profession of Friendship easily gains Credit with the Miserable; it is no wonder, therefore, if Jones , who, besides his being miserable, was extremely open hearted, very readily believed all the Professions of Benjamin , and received him into his Bosom” (369). Tom, having been exiled of his home, has no friends around or anyone to talk to. He is vulnerable to anyone who is kind to him because he is starving for companionship. Benjamin — aka Partridge, the man accused of
Allworthy raising him, but Blifil also grew up in the same household as Tom with the same teachings and, like Tom states in the above quotation, Blifil lacks the “Generosity of Spirit”. This spirit that Tom possesses can be seen throughout the novel, and his outlook on charity is best expressed in Book XII Chapter IV when he and Partridge encounter a beggar: Jones then fell a laughing, and asked Partridge, if he was not ashamed, with so much Charity in his Mouth, to have no Charity in Heart. ‘Your Religion,’ says he, ‘serves you only for an Excuse for your faults, but is no Incentive to your virtue. Can any Man who is really Christian abstain from relieving one of his Brethren in such a miserable Condition?’ (555 556) Tom does not understand how anyone, especially someone who talks about religion and uses it for an excuse, can walk right by someone in need. Tom will not walk away from someone in need if he has the means to help them. This is how Tom feels about charity, but he is not the only one who feels strongly on this subject. If the reader interprets the narrator as speaking for the author, than the reader also gets Fielding’s thoughts and feelings on the subject. He states in his introductory chapter of Book VI ...that there is in some (I believe in many) human Breasts, a kind and benevolent Disposition, which is gratified by contributing to the Happiness of others. That in this Gratification alone, as in Friendship, in parental and filial Affection, as indeed in general Philanthropy, there is a great and exquisite Delight. That if we will not call such Disposition Love, we have no Name for it (241 242). The narrator, when explaining the different kinds of love, makes a point of including this type of love. It is not a type of love people would normally think of, but, as the narrator says, if the name is not love then what should it be called? When people think of love they only think of loving a significant other or a parent, but the type of love the narrator describes is a love of mankind, A love that gives without expecting anything in return. This is the type of love that the narrator
seems to see as the best kind of love to possess, the love of making others happy. Tom Jones is one of the few people in the novel that the reader sees give to others without expecting a reward in return. Unlike the Man of the Hill and Rousseau, he does not abandon society once he encounters the ugliness that comes along with it. Instead, Tom continues to help others whenever he has the means to do so. The reason for this might be attributed to the fact that, because of the odd circumstances surrounding his birth, he has always been in close proximity to the hatred and malice society can dispense on a person that does not fit into the mold society has created. Tom, although protected by Allworthy’s name, still feels the effects of his parentage. Tom knows that the world is filled with people that find pleasure in harming others, but he does not let that dissuade him from continuing to do good. He knows and understands that those that do good outweigh those that do harm. He understands that Blifil is a selfish man but he also knows that the world contains plenty of Allworthys to balance out the scales. He shows time and time again that he values generosity over anything and admires those who are also generous. This Generosity of Spirit also reaches those who have done him wrong. One of the biggest difference between the Man of the Hill and Tom Jones is the ability to forgive. Forgiveness plays a huge role in Tom’s life. At the end of the novel, he is able to forgive everyone that has done him wrong. Not only does he forgive them, but he also does not want them punished for their indiscretions, although Allworthy believes they should be punished. The two main characters that require his forgiveness are Blifil and Black George. They both betrayed Tom because of money. Blifil manipulated Allworthy into believing that Tom was joyful of his illness, which leads to Allworthy banishing Tom from his home. This betrayal leads to Tom’s journey. Blifil’s betrayal is the one that is most heart wrenching because he is a boy Tom grew
