Masaryk University Faculty of Arts
Yüklə 191,47 Kb. Pdf görüntüsü
|
|
Masaryk University Faculty of Arts Department of English and American Studies English Language and Literature Dita Hochmanová Henry Fielding and the Philosophy of Morals Bachelor ’ s Diploma Thesis Supervisor: Mgr. Klára Kolinská, M.A., Ph. D. 2008 2 I declare that I have worked on this thesis independently, using only the primary and secondary sources listed in the bibliography. …………………………………………….. Author’s signature 3 I would like to thank my supervisor Mgr. Klára Kolinská, M.A., Ph. D. for her advice, encouragement and help. 4 Table of Contents 1. Introduction 5 2. Good and Evil 7 2.1. Tom Jones and Blifil 8 2.2. Allworthy and Western 17 3. The Ridicule of Prudence 20 3.1. Thwackum and Square 21 3.2. Blifil and Tom 25 4. The Moral Development of Tom Jones 30 5. Sentimentalism 35 5.1. Allworthy and Sophia 36 6. Conclusion 38 7. Works cited 40 5 1. Introduction The work of Henry Fielding, an 18 th century dramatist and satirist, not only displays its genius in the artistic sense, but also offers a representation of a universal moral frame which reflects and criticizes the society of the author’s time. In his masterpiece The History of Tom Jones, a Foundling, Fielding took an external approach to his characters and assigned them to various categories, using the characters as illustrations of virtues and vices in people. This approach enabled him to express his own conception of human nature. Fielding’s “broad moral perspective” (Watt 322) is perceptible in his design of so called “characters of manners” (297), which, despite their unconvincing inner life, have the important function of revealing the priority of “society and the larger order” (308) over an individual. So, beside a precise composition, a sophisticated plot and amusing characters, the author offers an ingenious complex system of moral values. Fielding’s moral conception finds its roots in the ethical theory of moral sense adopted from one of its earliest advocates, Anthony Ashley Cooper, the third Earl of Shaftesbury. In his philosophical treatise called Characteristics of Men, Manners, Opinions, Times, the Earl of Shaftesbury proposed the definitions of virtues and vices, the ways of recognizing them, and the possible methods of achieving the sublime moral state of wisdom. As some of the basic ideas of Shafesbury’s ethical theory can be found in the design of characters in Tom Jones, the thesis proposes to analyze the differences and parallels among some of the main characters in the novel, and examine their functions in the whole structure of the story in order to find connections between Fielding’s moral perspective and the main ideas in the theory of moral sense expressed by the Earl of Shaftesbury. 6 The main focus is on four major issues which are to be compared in both concepts. First, it is the issue of the notions of Good and Evil, or Virtue and Vice. They are demonstrated on the examples of two antagonists of the story, Tom Jones and Blifil, as well as on the characters of Squires Allworthy and Western. Then, the chief concern is the analysis of the perception of Prudence, illustrating different evaluations of this virtue on the characters of the priest Thwackum and the philosopher Square, as well as on the characters of Blifil and Tom Jones. This chapter is followed by the exploration of the moral development of the main character, which reflects the processes of achieving the important virtue of wisdom as described in Characteristics of Men, Manners, Opinions, Times. Finally, the fourth issue is the literary and philosophical movement called sentimentalism, which provides a connection between Shaftsbury’s emphasis on the importance of affection over reason and Fielding’s design of the characters of Squire Allworthy and Miss Sophia, playing the roles of Sense and Intuition in the story. 7 2. Good and Evil In Tom Jones, Fielding uses the main characters not only to entertain the readers by their comicality, but also to pose moral questions which challenge the readers to consider and judge the nature of the characters and the values of the society in general. Such an aim influenced the method of creating the principal characters and resulted in their shallowness and “emotional artificiality” (Watt 311) when these are compared to the secondary characters, displaying human nature more distinctly (Shaftesbury 87). However, as Fielding “was engaged in the exploration of a … mechanism of human society as whole” (Watt 329), he was “interested … only in those features of the individual which are necessary to assign him to his moral and social species” (310). Although Fielding did not use the analytical method, based on the observation of the particularities of a character, he carried out its function “through integration of … characters to one another and to a large, coherent moral vision” (Alter 65). At the same time, Fielding achieved to make his characters “vividly alive, even more complex, as he judges them and asks us to judge them” (65). Thus, his method proved that “generalized moral assessment can be an affective novelistic equivalent for particularized psychological rendering” (69). In brief, by using the categorization of the main characters, the author enables his readers to keep distance from them, which is necessary for an objective evaluation and possible generalization of the moral conclusions. The following two subchapters consist of the analysis of Fielding’s presentation of the values of virtue and vice. They are demonstrated on the comparison of the characters of Tom Jones and his antagonist Blifil, and on the contrast in the nature of Squires Allworthy and Western. 8 2.1. Tom Jones and Blifil Although Tom and Blifil were brought up in the same house and educated by the same teacher, these young gentlemen of almost the same age differed in two important things – social status and temper. Whereas Blifil was a legitimate descendant of Squire Allworthy, and thus the honored expectant heir of the estate, Tom Jones was only a foster-child with an uncertain origin and doubtful future, which forced him to fight for the respect of other people. As far as the temperament is concerned, Blifil “was, indeed a lad of remarkable disposition; sober, discreet, and pious beyond his age; qualities which gained him the love of every one who knew him,” (Fielding 99). Such a behavior highly contrasted with Tom’s vitality, indiscretion and intemperance. As a result, Tom was “universally disliked, and many expressed their wonder that Mr. Allworthy would suffer such a lad to be educated with his nephew lest the morals of the latter should be corrupted by his example” (99). Therefore, Blifil, thanks to his pretended infallibility, made an impression of moral superiority over his adversary. However, later in the story the reader finds out a contrariety in the judgment on the two young gentlemen and reveals that despite the denouncement of Tom Jones by authorities, Tom gained a great popularity and respect in the community for his good turns and kindness (110). Thus, the characters of Tom and Blifil illustrate that in one person, there is always something good as well as something evil. Also, as the two characters are presented so close to each other in the book, their differences are even more prominent, and it is inevitable for a reader to contrast them and judge them in the light of each other, the same as Good is always judged as the contrast to Evil. In this portrayal of Tom and Blifil, Fielding touches not only the question of virtue and vice but also two other important problems of ethics – the question of moral sense and the problem of the relation of self-interest and public interest (Grean xi). 9 Thus, he mirrors the theory of the Earl of Shaftsbury, who explored the three controversial issues – the essence of virtue and vice, the matter of moral sense and the subject of self-interest. Eventually, Shaftesbury achieved to define the bases of virtue and vice by connecting them to the question of moral sense and the problem of the interests of a man. In this subchapter, the basis and the crucial points of Shaftsbury’s moral theory are explained, and then their connection to Fielding’s conception is demonstrated by analyzing the characters of Blifil and Tom Jones. To start, the bases of Shaftesbury’s moral theory is the idea that moral sense is natural to us; thus, thanks to the moral faculty, our “moral sensibilities generate autonomic responses” (Wandless) to what we perceive. As a result, in these … characters or pictures of manners, … the heart cannot possibly remain neutral. … However false or corrupt it be within itself, it finds the difference … between one heart and another, one turn of affection, one behaviour, one sentiment and another … and … must approve … of what is natural and honest, and disapprove what is dishonest and corrupt (Shaftesbury 173). The most important idea in the section of Shaftsbury’s theory, defining the difference between virtue and vice, is the claim that “it is therefore by affection merely that a creature is esteemed good or ill, natural or unnatural (170). By this claim Shaftesbury suggested “that the virtues were rooted in the affections” and, subsequently, “he aimed to establish the natural basis of virtue, and to demonstrate that the social impulses were a necessary component of human nature” (Grean 138) – because “there is naturally in every man such a degree of social affection as inclines him to seek familiarity and friendship of his fellows” (Shaftesbury 215), as he adds. 10 So, since Shaftsbury identifies the virtuous and the moral with naturalness, he divides the affections into three categories: 1. the natural affections which lead to the good of the public; or 2. the self-affections which lead only to the good of the private; or 3. such as are neither of these; nor tending either to any good of the public or private; but contrary-wise: and which may therefore be justly styled unnatural affections (Shaftesbury 196). Then, he evaluates them, stating: So that according to these affections stand, a creature must be virtuous or vicious, good or ill. The latter sort of these affections, this evident, is wholly vicious. The two former may be virtuous or vicious according to their degree (196). As one of the highest values in the philosophy of Shaftesbury is harmony, it is clear that there should be “an exact proportionableness, constancy and regularity in all … passions and affections” (199). Therefore, “it follows that a primary degree of any creature would be that its affections be neither excessive nor defective” (Grean 150). Hence, it is the degree of affections in a man, especially in case of self-affections, which assigns the virtuous or the vicious value to the human behaviour. In brief, the Earl of Shaftesbury clearly states the criterion of affections, according to which an individual should be judged because in his philosophical conception, as well as in the literary one of Fielding, a whole man is seen not only as an individual but also as a social agent and a part of a system ruled by a higher order. Thus, the virtue or vice of every person should be judged according to his or her ability to support the society by creating affections towards other people. The fact that Fielding portraits Tom Jones as a boy who touches the hearts of all 11 the other positive characters despite his disgraceful and impetuous behaviour can be explained by comparing the portrayal of Tom’s character to the description of Shaftesbury’s category of “the natural affections” in his theory of morals: Shaftesbury gives no precise list of the social affections, but treats them as a rather fluid group of related impulses including the drive for preservation of the species, gregariousness, sympathy, the various forms of familial affection, …friendship, patriotism, and love of humanity. … They unite the individual to a community, and commit him to work for the values of that community (Grean 154). Following the list of impulses, it is actually the first one which causes Tom Jones so much trouble in a society which praises the values of chastity and prudence. Although the instinct to preserve the species is a natural part of every man and, on the whole, it contributes to the well-being of the society by ensuring its survival, in the case of Tom Jones, the objection to his free-minded sexual affairs is not faint because it is contrary to the general values of the society of which he is a member. Then, they are the impulses of gregariousness and friendship which also correspond to the character of Tom because he likes social events, like hunting with Squire Western, and makes a close friendship with a gamekeeper Black George, whose fellowship he respects so much that he is rather willing to let himself beaten than to betray him (Fielding 103). Moreover, Tom’s love of mankind is apparent from his meeting with The Man of the Hill when Tom arguments against his misanthropy (406-7). Afterwards, it is the feeling of sympathy which Tom proved to have on many occasions, especially in the cases of the family of his friend Black George and the family of Mr. Anderson, which both fell into dreadful poverty and Tom’s financial support actually helped them survive. Also, the familial affection is reflected in the 12 character of Tom by his devotion and great respect to his patron Allworthy, whom he considered to be his only family as it is expressed, for example, in Tom’s behaviour at Allworthy’s sick-bed: “Jones flung himself at the benefactor’s feet and … assured him his goodness to him, both now and at all other times, had so infinitely exceeded not only his merit but his hopes that no words can express his sense of it” (204). Finally, Tom Jones manifested an impulse of patriotism when he decided to join a company of soldiers (311) and defend the army of King George against a rebellion. So, as it is demonstrated by many examples in the story, the personal qualities of Tom Jones, which Fielding described in Tom’s speech as well as in his actions, correspond to the category of natural affections described by the Earl of Shaftesbury as virtuous and thus, Tom proves to be good and morally superior to his antagonist. In the second category of the affections, called the self-affections, it is the degree of an affection which decides about its positive or negative significance because a moderated self-interest, which does not oppose the social affections in a man can not only absolutely agree with virtue, but is even necessary for achieving it. The basic list of self-interests in Shaftesbury’s conception includes “love of life,” “resentment of injury,” “pleasure” (or “luxury”), desire for wealth and material conveniences (“interest”), love of praise (“emulation”) and love of ease and rest (“indolence”), as Stanley Grean classified them on the basis of his studies of Shaftesbury’s works (Grean 164). The character of Tom Jones embodies all these interests in a natural degree, which means that they do not constrain his social affections. His love of life is evident in everything he does because he admires its pleasures and shows a great respect for its value, for instance, when he spares the life of a robber who tries to steal his money (Fielding 579) and when he saves the life of Mrs. Waters attacked by a ruffian Northerton (416). Also, his natural instinct causing the resentment of injury is 13 moderated into such an extent that, for example, Tom does not hesitate to risk his own life to protect the one of Sophia, and when her horse goes berserk (167), he fearlessly rushes to save her, which results in a fracture of his arm. Then, it is the interest in pleasure, by which Shaftesbury means “basically the pleasures of sense, which would include the pleasures derived from satisfying such basic physiological drives as hunger and sex” (Grean 166), which is typical of Tom’s character and also makes his character controversial because of Tom’s frankness and freedom. However, Tom’s behaviour in case of his sexual affaires is always caused by natural instincts, and is neither consciously harmful to his mistresses, nor conflicting his social affections, and thus not immodest but only irresponsible. Moreover, Tom’s desire of wealth is extremely limited as he sacrifices his own property to help the poor (Fielding 118). Also, he is the only person who feels gratitude instead of envy and greed when he is promised a sum of money from his sick patron Allworthy on his death-bed (204). Finally, Tom cannot be accused of neither emulation nor indolence because his temperament is congenitally opposite – as can be demonstrated on the example of all the troubles he gets into as a young boy for his lack of ambition in studies, for his liveliness and his concern in other people. On the contrary, the character of Blifil illustrates the same self-interests but this time in the immodest degree. First, Blifil does not show any manifestations of love of life, as he prefers solitude to company and strictly denounces Tom for his enjoyments. Also, Blifil’s cowardice and squealing when he is punched by Tom for calling him a bastard (107) and his gingerly attack on him later with the help of Thwackum (220) proves an excessive resentment of injury which, moreover, he would not suffer for anybody but himself. Although Blifil does not find many interests in sex or gastronomy, he reveals himself as a greedy person when he consciously suppresses the truth about 14 Tom’s origin (210) in order to become the only heir of the estate, and thus his desire of luxury, wealth and material conveniences is undeniable. Then, Blifil’s behaviour towards the authorities – his uncle, his schoolmaster Thwackum and the philosopher Square – is often calculated and servile, as Blifil longs for the privileges resulting from their praise. Moreover, he even uses the difficulties of Tom to better oneself in the eyes of others by snitching on him and slandering against him because, taking it all, without the incessant mistakes of Tom, there would be little to praise about Blifil. Lastly, the indolence in the character of Blifil is demonstrated on the relationships he makes with other characters, as most of these relationships are pretended and they are based purely on Blifil’s own interests. Consequently, Blifil cares neither for the poor nor for beautiful Sofia, whom he plans to use only as a tool for gaining the estate of her father. So, while the two characters of Tom and Blifil are compared, Tom’s self affections are natural, moderated and orientated towards social welfare, and thus virtuous, whereas Blifil’s interests are only selfish and immodest and thus, immoral and vicious. Finally, the third Shaftesbury’s category of affections, called “the unnatural affections”, largely reflects the character of Blifil, since the unnatural affections are: “inhuman delight,” “delight in disorder,” “malice or ill-will,” “envy,” “hatred of mankind and society,” “passions aroused by superstition” and “sexual perversion”, as classified by Grean (169-71). First, by “inhuman delight” Shaftesbury means the delight in “witnessing the suffering or destruction of others” (Grean 169), which Blifil manifests when he peaches on Tom to see him punished usually by severe beating. Also, Tom’s expulsion from the Paradise Hall is presented as Blifil’s final success as an intriguer and he shows no pity 15 with his mate, which is evident from a rigid letter he sends Tom on his departure (Fielding 277). Although Blifil does not embody much “delight in disorder,” his malice is demonstrable on many examples of his behaviour because it results from the excessive self-affections, which are always first in his mind, and thus he does not respect the concerns of anyone else but himself. Such an attitude goes hand in hand with “envy,” already demonstrated on Blifil’s jealousy of Tom, and results in misanthropy, causing Blifil’s inability to create affections towards other people. Moreover, his unnatural attitude towards people includes also a lack of sensibility towards the opposite sex, which then culminates in sexual perversion when Blifil feels satisfaction by getting Sophia against her will (291). So, the same as the character of Tom Jones corresponds to Shaftesbury’s description of virtue, the negative qualities in the character of Blifil reflect Shaftesbury’s description of vice. The difference between virtue and vice in the conception of Shaftesbury is closely tied with his theory of conflict between self-interest and public interest. Although these two always compete in the nature of a man, they do not have to be in disaccord. On the contrary, “Shaftesbury not only considers the self-affections as necessary for the physical and mental health of the individual, but he regards them as essential constituents of virtue” (Grean 175). Thus, even though Fielding’s character of Tom Jones fights for his own rights, he gradually discovers the right measure of self-affection. Also, despite his goodness, he avoids becoming “too good”, which would lead to self-immolation and destruction – as is observable on the examples of Molly Seagrim and Arabella Hunt, when he chooses not to sacrifice himself for the interests of others. 16 However, the self-immolation is not the only imbalance of the private and public affections. It is also the opposite extreme – “that of being too selfish” because “selfishness and egocentricity is characterised by narrowness of outlook and … is one source of moral evil” (176). It is illustrated on the character of Blifil, who is incapable of considering the public interest and social involvement, and thus his behaviour is evil. Moreover, Shaftesbury claims that “to be wicked and vicious, is to be miserable and unhappy” (Shaftesbury 229); therefore, “Virtue is the Good and Vice is the Ill of everyone” (230). It corresponds with Fielding’s concept of the story which ends in a happy-ending and the good character of Tom gets from all the troubles, whereas the bad character of Blifil gets punished for all his crimes. So, the characters of two male antagonists in Tom Jones illustrate not only Shaftesbury’s conception of virtue and vice but also the one of private interest and public interest. To conclude, Shaftesbury’s presumption that everyone is able to distinguish right from wrong thanks to the moral sense influenced the conception of Fielding’s characters of Tom and Blifil, and created the bases for his method of pressing the reader to make moral judgements on the characters. Therefore, Fielding designed the character of Tom as an example of what is moral and virtuous, and, the character of Blifil as an illustration of what is immoral and vicious. His conception of the two characters is in accordance with Shaftesbury’s moral theory, claiming that virtue is based on natural affections, which contribute to social welfare and lead to happiness of an individual, whereas unnatural affections are merely selfish, and thus vicious, and they lead to misery of everyone. 17 2.2 Allworthy and Western As the two characters of Tom and Blifil demonstrate the difference between virtue and vice, the characters of Allworthy and Western serve as an illustration of two other important concepts in Shaftesbury’s theory. In this subchapter, the representations of Squires Allworthy and Western are going to be explored in order to reveal their meanings in connection with Shaftesbury’s ideas of importance of liberty and balance. First, the significance of liberty and rational judgement is embodied in the character of Squire Allworthy, who, by his portrayal as well as by his symbolical name, represents calm reasonable wisdom, right moral authority, and also enlightened tolerance which denounces injustice of social determinism, supports intellectuals of the time and promotes the rights of the oppressed. Contrary to the general attitude, Allworthy denies perceiving the baby foundling Tom as something inferior to other human beings and decides to take charge of him, treating him without prejudices as an equal to all the others, by which he proves to be a person whose affections are balanced. Moreover, in accordance with the idea that “conversation in a free society is the bases for moral and cultural improvement (Shaftesbury vii), Allworthy houses intellectuals at his mansion, again symbolically called Paradise Hall, in order to provide them with an opportunity to exchange ideas in open debates. Finally, even though in general a father had the right to choose a husband for his daughter, Allworthy disagrees with the marriage of Sophia without her consent and thus, since “if reason be needful, force in the meanwhile must be laid aside, for there is no enforcement of reason but by reason” (Shaftesbury 263), Allworthy disapproves of bringing Sophia to reason by force. 18 Therefore, Squire Allworthy serves as an example of “the ideal personality – the truly virtuous man” in whom “the affections co-operate harmoniously in directing the individual towards public good” (Grean 200). Also, he illustrates the importance of balanced calm judgement which excludes prejudices and supports the liberty of decision as well as of opinion for everyone. On the contrary, the relationship between Squire Western and his daughter Sophia clearly demonstrates the bitter consequences of imbalance in affections of an individual and the inevitable misery of a person without the freedom of thought. The character of Squire Western is ambiguous for his very strong affections towards his daughter on one hand, and his tyrannical treating of her on the other. Such an ambiguity, as well as the lack of “reality of emotions” (Watt 311), is the side effect of Fielding’s comic approach, which softens the shocking manners of Western, but, at the same time, stresses the absurdity of his wrong and unfair behaviour towards his daughter. Then, it illuminates the source of naivety in the character of Sophia “for it is opinion of goodness which creates easiness of trust and, by trust we are betrayed to power, our very reason being thus captivated by those in whom we come insensibly to have an implicit faith (Shaftesbury 44). In general, Sophia’s character reflects the conditions of young women deprived of education and freedom of speech and thus, dependent on men’s will, trusting and easy to manipulate. However, by the happy- ending of the story, when Sophia is finally allowed to choose Tom, Fielding demonstrates that the “external power cannot enforce internal feeling where the will is opposed” (Grean 129) and that Sophia’s submission to force would mean her misfortune. In brief, by contrasting the characters of Squire Allworthy and Squire Western, Fielding presented an ideal of a reasonable and well-balanced man who supports liberty, 19 and, a caricature of an overbearing father who almost ruins his only beloved daughter by his own narrow-mindedness. Thus, Fielding illustrated Shaftesbury’s ideas about the significance of liberty of thought and of balance of affections in a man, which are both important conditions for achieving a real virtue. 20 3. The Ridicule of Prudence Along with the significance of liberty and balance, Shaftesbury also stresses the importance of humour, which he considers to be a powerful weapon against hypocrisy, facilitating the quest for the truth. He promotes the “test of ridicule” (Shaftesbury 8) and encourages the satirical style, which functions “by comparing of the ideal and the actual” (Grean 121). Therefore, it is able to reveal what is “truly serious and what is ridiculous” (Shaftesbury 8) because all which is true and virtuous cannot be harmed by laughter, but what is inharmonious and vicious is discovered and justly criticised. Nevertheless, the philosopher warns that “there is a difference between … ‘true raillery’ and mere ‘buffoonery’” because only “the former is an instrument of reason” (Grean 126). Thus, “a man must be soundly ridiculous who, with all the wit imaginable, would go about to ridicule wisdom, honesty or laugh at honesty or good manners” (Shaftesbury 60). In accordance with these claims, Fielding proves himself to be a true satirist because he fully realizes that the satire should not be “without morals and instructions, which is the majesty and life of this kind of writing” (Shaftesbury 119). So, in his work, he largely uses ridicule and wit, as a part of his moral conception, to expose the pretence and to criticise the wrong attitudes of his time. The next two subchapters provide an analysis of Fielding’s method of using the ridicule to criticize the abuse of philosophy and religion and then, this method is demonstrated on the characters of Square and Thwackum. Also, Fielding’s method of attacking the general misunderstanding of prudence is going to be examined and thereafter, illustrated on the contrasting perception of prudence in the characters of Tom Jones and Blifil. 21 3.1. Thwackum and Square Mr. Thwackum, the divine, and Mr. Square, the philosopher, are both great examples of Fielding’s method of categorisation because the portrayal of their qualities illustrates the shortcomings in the understanding of religious and moral principles. The two characters thus function as funny caricatures of canting priests and shifty philosophers in general. First, the character of Thwackum, who is presented as a highly educated instructor of Tom and Blifil and as an unmistakeable interpreter of religious rules of morality, serves not only as an example of a selfish zealot, but also demonstrates a menace which such a person can mean for a society. From Thwackum’s disputes with Square, the reader is informed that Mr. Thwackum considered “the divine power of grace” (Fielding 104) as the only constant value, and that he “decided all the things by authority” (104), citing the Scriptures and their commentators. By doing so, he hides behind dogmas, which he freely manipulates, to become a redoubtable judge whose authority is publicly respected. However, as the only way he can gain respect of other people is either by pretended praise of his superiors or by cruel treatment of those who are inferior and dare to disobey him, it is evident that his beliefs, both moral and religious, are based on wrong principles. In the criticism of false understanding of religion, Shaftesbury claims that Christian behaviour conducted by fear of punishment and hope in reward instead of mere love for Devine Example is wrong and selfish because “self-love diminishes the affections towards public good and introduces a certain narrowness of spirit observable in devout persons or zealots” (Shaftesbury 184). Thus, as “neither this fear nor hope can possibly be of the kind called good affections” (184), “the hope of reward and the fear of punishment are not true sources of moral behaviour” (Grean 194). 22 Such a conclusion disproves another mistaken opinion of Mr. Thwackum – that honour cannot exist independently from religion (Fielding 103). On the example of Thwackum’s own demoralised manners, Fielding illustrates that “morality is not product of theology” (Grean 184) and therefore, he confirms Shaftesbury’s point of view. Moreover, on the character of the vicious priest, as well as on the one of vicious Blifil, Fielding demonstrates that selfish interests can never lead to real pleasure. So, at the end, both bad characters fail to profit from their machinations and gain condemnation by Mr. Allworthy. Besides, as Thwackum is not only a priest and a “moral authority” (my inverted commas) in general but also a teacher serving as an example for two adolescent boys, his conduct and methods influenced the development of both young men. In case of Tom Jones, the chicanery and the unjust harshness did not force him to find pleasure in studying or to become honest, but they helped the boy to discover the importance of goodness in human nature as well as the fact that virtue and honour should be judged by different criteria than those imposed by conceited priests. Thus, it is through the character of Tom that Fielding makes the test of ridicule because, by Tom’s natural vivacity and freedom of mind, as well as by the usage of reason and by disregard of artificial education of the young boy, Fielding ruins Thwackum’s false gravity and later, he lets the character of Tom fight against the unjust punishments and openly resist Thwackum’s authority. On the contrary, in case of Blifil, the influence of the teacher was completely harmful because it made the boy adopt the false selfish moral principle based on hope for a personal reward and fear from punishment. As a result, since Blifil gets praise for imitating the wrong example of his instructor, the young gentleman does not feel any need for developing natural affections and does not act with view of public good but 23 only with a view to gain personal merit. So, the character of Thwackum not only illustrates the illness of misinterpreted religious doctrines in general, but also serves as a demonstration of what destructive consequences can have the influence of a vicious person on other people. Then, the character of Mr. Square, a respectable guest in the house of Squire Allworthy, a man of letters and a philosopher, again represents the abuse of right ideas and also the danger of uselessness of philosophy when it is ivory-towered and does not serve any practical purposes. As well as the character of Mr. Thwackum, Square hides his private aims behind the vagueness of terms and sophistry. Instead of convenient interpretation of religious dogmas, he finds a support in the abstract speculations on “the natural beauty of virtue” and “the eternal fitness of things”” (Fielding 104), which “prove inadequate to the business of life” and only “flatter the philosopher’s opinion of himself but provide no effective moral imperative” (Battestin, Interpretations 10). So, in agreement with Shafesbury’s criticism of philosophical systems which lose touch with reality and thus, fail to “make people effective participants in the world” (Shaftesbury viii), Fielding created a caricature of a hypocritical philosopher, whose empty declamations he ridicules by displaying the same artificiality of the priest’s arrogant moralizing during their disputes. Subsequently, by concluding that “in one point only they agreed, which was in all their discourses on morality never to mention the word goodness” (Fielding 104), the author adverts to the falsehood of both. Also, there is another way in which Fielding “demonstrates the irrelevancy of Square’s metaphysics to the moral life” (Battestin, Interpretations 10) – by “his exposure in Molly Seagrim’s bedroom … which, as the hilarious revelation of the naked truth behind the drapery of pretension, may be taken as the quintessential dramatization 24 of Fielding’s theory of ‘the true Ridiculous’” (10). Moreover, it is again the character of Tom who finds the funny secret lover and ridicules his authority by sincere laugh. In brief, Fielding’s character of Mr. Square illustrates the necessity of a close relation between philosophy and real life, which enables to avoid the possibility of its misuse or impracticability. 25 3.2. Blifil and Tom After designing the two main conflicting characters, Tom and Blifil, as the symbols of virtue and vice, respectively, Fielding used them to express an objection against the perception of prudence in the society of his time. Fielding actually uses two notions of prudence: “on the one hand, prudence is the summarising vice of Blifil …, and on the other hand, prudence is that virtue Tom Jones must acquire before he reaches maturity as a moral agent” (Battestin, Interpretations 13). It reflects two conceptions of the term – the former, in which “the supreme rational virtue of the ancients” is transformed “into that selfish and mean-spirited sense of expediency” (14) and the latter, in the sense of the “practical wisdom” (13), which means “the ability to distinguish truth from appearances and to estimate the future consequences of our present actions” (14). Although the equivocation of the term might seem as an imperfection in Fielding’s philosophical concept of the story, the contrary is the case, because the “ambiguous use of prudence is calculated to test the reader’s own ability to distinguish true or false” (14) and to follow the main hero on his way to achieving the virtue. In the context of Shaftesbury’s philosophy, Fielding develops his theory about the true virtue and vice, stressing the naturalness of making social affections on which depend “not only pleasures of the mind but also those of the body” (Shaftesbury 212). Also, he emphasises the importance of generosity as the opposite of selfishness and pointless austerity. As the character of Tom represents the natural affections, Fielding uses the potential of the character in order to open the theme of sexuality perceived as a natural part of human nature. Unlike the reserved nature of Blifil, Tom Jones follows his heart as well as his sexual impulses, which are not portrayed as dangerous, vicious or 26 harmful; on the contrary, Fielding describes them as natural, positive and joyful, using his “worldly-wise good humour,” which “often persuades us to regard [Tom’s] sexual irregularities as ludicrous rather than wicked” (Watt 323). So, Fielding suggests that the “simple physical desire … can be generous” (Alter 68) and that sexual impulses as such are not dirty and contemptible but rather a part “of social and natural affections” (Shaftesbury 213) and a means of the satisfaction reciprocal. Such an approach is demonstrated especially on the example of the character of Jenny Jones, which, from the start to the end of the story, is closely connected with the issue of sexuality: first, she is portrayed as a victim of the strict public opinion when she decides to shoulder the guilt of Miss Allworthy to conceal her own pregnancy and to escape Bridewell; then, as her history follows, she becomes a free-minded mistress of sergeant Waters; and finally, she is described as a temptress of Tom Jones in an amusing scene when their privacy is interrupted by a jealous and furious husband searching for his wife. Thus, Tom’s sexual affair is again smoothed over by humour. Nevertheless, it is not on Tom Jones’s spontaneous vitality that Fielding applies his test of ridicule; on the contrary, he criticises the unnaturally suppressed sexuality in the characters of Blifil and Thwackum, the hypocritical concealment of sexual relationships in the characters of Miss Bridget Allworthy and Square, and the abuse of sexuality in the characters of lady Bellaston and Molly Seagrim. If it was suggested in the previous subchapter that it is through the character of Tom Jones that Fielding ridicules the false authorities of Mr. Thwackum and Mr. Square, it should also be mentioned that in cases of Molly Seagrim and Lady Bellaston it is the character of Squire Western which functions in the same way. By his unrestrained vulgar spontaneity, Squire Western reveals the base nature of Molly when 27 he names her a “puss,” chasing her like a varmint and calling her “fox” (Fielding 225). Also, he laughs at the arrogant slyness of lady Bellaston and her friends when he (very rightly) describes them, saying: “There was my lady cousin Bellaston and my Lady Betty and my Lady Catherine and my Lady I-don’t-know-who; d—n me, if ever you catch me among such a kennel of hoop-petticoat b—s.” (759). Moreover, he ridicules their artificial way of speaking when he comments on the marriage proposal to his daughter by a lord, mimicking the ladies: “‘A very advantageous offer, indeed,’ cries another cousin … ‘Surely’, says that fat a—se b—, my Lady Bellaston, ‘cousin, you must be out of your wits to think of refusing such an offer.’” (759). Thus, although Mr. Western’s tyranny towards his daughter is definitely criticised in the novel, the contrast between his vulgar directness and the courtly behaviour of the ladies in London serves as a very useful devise to disclose their pretence. Certainly, the wrong perception of prudence is criticised also in the wicked character of Blifil. Whereas Tom Jones, despite his dissoluteness, treats women with real respect, Blifil at first does not find any interest in them, and later pretends respect only to conceal his heartlessness. Fielding demonstrates Blifil’s deformed perception of prudence on the example of his relationship to Sophia: First, instead of being naturally charmed by the beauty of the young lady like Tom Jones, Blifil seems totally ignorant of it and, hiding behind the virtue of chastity, he covers his unnatural want of feeling towards people. Then, his bluntness comes to the surface during the incident with Sophia’s little bird when the selfish insensitive nature of Blifil is revealed. Finally, it is Blifil’s attitude towards Sophia when he proposes to her that proves him to be completely immoral because, although he knew she detested him, it did not change his plans a bit, 28 nor was his desire at all lessened by the aversion which he discovered in her to himself. On the contrary, this served rather to heighten the pleasure he proposed in rifling her charms, as it added triumph to lust; nay, he had some further views, from obtaining the absolute possession of her person, which we detest too much even to mention; and revenge itself was not without its share in the gratifications which he promised himself (291). So, even though Blifil enjoys a good reputation of a chaste and respectable young man, he fails to satisfy the criteria of virtue, as it is something really in itself and in the nature of things, not arbitrary or factitious, … not constituted from without or dependent on custom, fancy or will, not even on the supreme will itself, which can no way govern it but, being necessarily good, is governed by it and ever uniform with it (Shaftesbury 267). Hence it follows that the vicious hypocrisy of Blifil, protected by the values of a religious zealot and a manipulative opportunist, can be exposed and rightly condemned by other characters in the book as well as by its readers. Therefore, by portraying the character of Blifil as unnatural and immoral despite the general opinion of his correctness, Fielding questions the conventional morality and denounces it as either “short-sighted” or allied “with self-interest” (Kelleher). Also, by contrasting the behaviour and attitudes of the two young antagonists, and by demonstrating that “too much chastity in Blifil is as bad as Tom’s too little” (Watt 323) – and maybe even worse, he advocates a new scale of values which corresponds with Shaftesbury’s theory of virtue and vice; and so, he manages to relate the significance of this theory to the real world of ordinary people. 29 To conclude, Fielding’s ridicule of prudence is not only the criticism of false authorities and hypocrisy in the society but also the defence of human naturalness, which implicates that the making of social affections is based on generosity and understanding, and thus should not be limited by an unnecessary austerity leading to pretence and distortions in the perception of virtue. 30 4. The Moral Development of Tom Jones Taking into consideration Fielding’s categorisation of the main characters in Tom Jones, which results in their flatness, the main hero of the book is probably the only character which undertakes a certain moral development. In this chapter, Shaftesbury’s theory about the moral development of a man in general is going to be explained and then, it is going to be demonstrated on Fielding’s conception of the character of Tom Jones, which illustrates the principle of the mentioned theory. The main idea of Shaftesbury’s thesis on moral development is that every person has a natural tendency to goodness and virtue; however, as both the good and the bad qualities are mixed in human nature (Shaftesbury 176), everyone has to undertake a “formation of taste” (152) and learn how to recognise the right values of things. On the ground that every person has the inner ability of distinguishing the right from wrong and thus, is able to judge his own actions as well as those of others, the processes of development is realised particularly by inner conversation and self-reflection (225). Consequently, when a man achieves the knowledge of himself, masters the ability to recognise which values are more important than the others and finally, manages to behave accordingly, he can attain the true virtue and wisdom. These are, at the same time, the main and constant sources of happiness because only virtue leads to real happiness, whereas vice always leads to the destruction of a person. In Fielding’s novel, the main hero Tom Jones, who is gifted with good heart but burdened with imprudence, struggles through all the stages of moral development to achieve the state of virtue and happiness with his beloved Sophia. First, as a child, he was exposed to the influence of two authorities – the virtuous personality of his patron Squire Allworthy and the vicious and brutal person of his teacher Thwackum. Thus, since his early childhood, he had the opportunity to observe 31 the contrast between goodness and evil and to create the idea of both, which was very important for his “realising the meaning of good” (Grean 211). It is also reflected in his relationship with Blifil whom he “really loved” (Fielding 107) as a child, but later, when he discovered his real nature, he was able to recognise his wickedness and started avoiding his company. However, despite his ability to recognise goodness and evil, young Jones reacts impulsively and is unable to control his behaviour. As a result, he fails to resist the mischievous provocations of young Blifil and gets involved in misfortunate conflicts which scandalize the public and ruin Tom Jones’s reputation. Therefore, the character of Blifil is not only an antagonistic character creating the balance between good and evil in the book, but he also plays a significant role in the moral progress of the main hero because he challenges his abilities and thus, contributes to their development. Nevertheless, the changes in morality in the character of Tom Jones are best observable in his attitude towards women, and especially towards his beloved Sophia. The character of Sophia, representing the longed-for ideal of beauty and prudence which Tom is trying to gain, is, at first, only the object of his admiration and natural interest. While trying to resist the charming beauty of the unattainable Sophia, Tom is seduced by Molly Seagrim, an attractive poor girl, whom he likes but never takes too seriously. Later, when Molly tells him that he is the father of her unborn baby, Tom feels responsibility and is willing to marry her, even though he wishes to gain the love of Sophia. Fortunately, Molly’s cheating and her calculated plots come to light in time and Tom escapes from her trap, feeling relief and sympathy with Molly rather than anger and frustration. As “such is the natural affection of all mankind towards moral beauty and perfection” (Shaftesbury 126), Tom still longs for Sophia and his hopes are intensified 32 by the discovery that his affections are returned. The troubled situation of the young hero is concisely expressed in the scene where Tom is contemplating about his strong feelings for Sophia and pleads his loyalty to the beloved person, claiming: Could I think my eyes capable of looking at any other with tenderness, these hands should tear them from my head. … The chastest constancy will I ever preserve to thy image. Though I should never have possession of thy charming person, still shalt thou alone have possession of my thoughts, my love, my soul (Fielding 216). A few moments later, comes Molly Seagrim and, after a short conversation with Tom, “they retire into the thickest part of the grove” (216); so, regardless his thoughts, love and soul, she is the one who takes the possession of Tom’s body. Such behaviour of the young boy is commented by the author, when he adds: “Jones probably thought one woman better than none” (216) and then, he excuses the hero and explains that “he was not at this time perfect master of that wonderful power of Reason” (216) because he was drunk. Therefore, by portraying Tom as a volatile and superficial youth, Fielding stresses Tom’s inability to distinguish between physical desire and pure love which he both describes in the following chapter: what is commonly called love, namely, the desire of satisfying voracious appetite with a certain quantity of delicate white human flesh is, by no means, the passion for which I here contend … esteem and gratitude are the proper motives to love, as youth and beauty are to desire; and, therefore though such desire may naturally cease when age or sickness overtake its object, yet these can have no effect on love (227-8). After clarifying the terms in this issue, Fielding subjects the main hero to another temptation: as Sophia falls in love with young Tom, he has the opportunity to run away 33 with her, but at the cost of her social debasement and economical deprival. Being condemned by his benefactor and expelled from Paradise Hall, Tom finally started to “reason with his passion … and thus honour at last, backed with … gratitude to his benefactor, and with true love for his mistress, got the better of burning desire and he resolved rather to quit Sophia than to pursue her to her ruin” (264). Thus, Tom proves himself to be on the right way to achieving the moral maturity. His struggling through love affairs with Mrs. Waters on his way to London and with Lady Bellaston in the city does not reveal much about the changes in Tom’s way of thinking because he is still portrayed as a young boy who already knows that there is a difference between true love and passion, however, is not able to resist the temptation of women who seduce him. It is rather the story of Mr. Nightingale and Nancy Miller which makes Tom Jones reflect on his own experiences with the values of love, and makes him recognise how important it is to treat women with respect and responsibility, as he expresses in the conversation with his friend Nightingale: Lookee, Mr. Nightingale, … I am no canting hypocrite, nor do I pretend to the gift of chastity more than my neighbours. I have been guilty with women, I own it, but am not conscious that I have ever injured any; nor would I, to procure pleasure to myself be knowingly the cause of misery to any human being (643). Then, the final prove of Tom’s development is his refusal of a beautiful young widow Lady Hunt, who is in love with him and would secure him financially. As he reaches the understanding that esteem and gratitude are essential to constant love, and, since he knows that he cannot offer them to Lady Hunt because he loves Sophia, Tom decides not to accept her proposal. So, at the end of the book, when for the second time Tom Jones pledges constancy to his beloved girl, he can truly claim: “I have learnt it already. 34 The first moment of hope that my Sophia might be my wife … all the rest of her sex … became as little the objects of desire to my sense as of passion to my heart” (843). Therefore, he finally gains the virtue of wisdom, the esteem of Sophia and also her consent to marriage. To conclude, in accordance with Shaftesbury’s concept of the moral development, the main character in Fielding’s novel Tom Jones develops from a thoughtless youth, who has to learn true values of things and master his behaviour, to a virtuous and honourable man capable of understanding and constancy in opinions and temper. 35 5. Sentimentalism While asserting new approach to values in the society, Fielding as a moralist as well as a writer, did not only emphasise the importance of social affections, liberty and wisdom. Along with these virtues, he also stressed the relevance of sentiment as an indispensable part of understanding and the right judgement. By doing so, he reflected one of the thoughts in the moral concept of Shaftesbury, who defined the process of moral knowledge and judgement as “a complex fusion of intellect and emotion” (Grean 219), claiming that “the knowledge of good is not merely intellectual process,” as “it involves the affectional life, the trial or exercise of the heart” and thus, the “wisdom is more from the Heart than from the Head” (220). So, under “the broad influence of the philosophical writings of the third Earl of Shaftesbury, particularly his efforts to … affirm the goodness of human nature and the beneficence of the human heart” (Kelleher), Fielding’s sentimentalism gets cultural ambitions and differs from “the emotionalism generated by the maudlin spectacle of female virtue in distress” (Kelleher), which is represented by the work of Samuel Richardson and is traditionally understood as sentimentalism by literary historians. The notions of reason and sentiment in the conceptions of Shaftesbury and Fielding do not contradict each other. On the contrary, it is their synthesis which is suggested as the ideal means of finding the truth in judgement and the harmony in life. In the following subchapter, Fielding’s design of the characters of Mr. Allworthy, representing sense, and Sophia, representing intuition, is going to be analysed in order to demonstrate that Fielding’s concept illustrates Shaftesbury’s idea of the necessity of synthesis of reason and sentiment for the right moral judgement. 36 5.1. Allworthy and Sophia As well as the characters of Tom and Blifil are symbols of good and evil, the characters of Squire Allworthy and Miss Sophia also have symbolic meanings. Whereas the character of Squire Allworthy personifies intellect and rational wisdom, the one of Sophia represents sentiment and intuition. Although they both are portrayed as virtuous and almost perfect, the story proves that they fail to make the right judgements because their abilities are not complex. Despite Allworthy’s reputation of being a reasonable judge and the ideal of the righteous life, there are few important instances in the book in which “he has also been presumptuous” and “righteous overmuch” (Alter 85). First, he punishes Partridge for adultery on account of false evidence of his wife and charges Jenny Jones with abandoning her child on the basis of gossip. Then, he condemns Molly Seagrim to Bridewell for fornication even though “he exceeded his authority a little in this instance. And, to say the truth, I question, as here was no regular information before him, whether his conduct was strictly regular” (Fielding 160). Finally, he condemns the good-hearted Tom Jones on the ground of Blifil’s slanders and so, “we suspect in Allworthy just that degree of stupidity which makes it credible that he could have Blifil and Tom under his roof for so long, and yet know so little of the character of either” (Jenkins 63). Therefore, it is not the lack of reason or wisdom which causes Allworthy to make mistaken judgments about people, it is the lack of intuition and sentiment, changing the goodness of his intentions into tireless moralizing, which, however sound, goes astray. In contrast to Squire Allworthy, Sophia judges people intuitively and spontaneously. However, such judgments are not presented as naïve or false; on the contrary, Sophia succeeds in judging people much better than the honorable Squire. According to Shaftesbury, the intuition is “always a rational process of mind” (Grean 37 43) and “the moral sense operates in part as an intuitive faculty in so far that there is immediate apprehension of the moral qualities of actions or characters” (206). Sophia exemplifies this statement as she does not let herself fool by the counterfeit and misleading behavior of young Mr. Blifil, Mr. Thwackum or Mr. Square. Already as a young girl, she discoverers their hypocrisy when, after the incident with her little bird, she judges Mr. Blifil’s manners rightly, imputing his action “to his anger which the superior sagacity of Thwackum and Square discerned to have arisen from a much better principle” (Fielding 132). Thus, she is able to realize the truth through intuition and simple observation, surpassing the stiff and superior rational prudence of Squire Allworthy. Nevertheless, however right with her intuitive judgments Sophia is, she fails to behave rationally herself since she falls in love with a penniless foundling and she undertakes great dangers, escaping to London to avoid the marriage with Blifil. So, whereas Allworthy lacks the gift of intuition, Sophia lacks the faculty of reason which “plays a key role in establishing the setting within which the affections function” (Grean 222). Thus, it is only when the capacities of reason and intuition are interrelated that a person can make the right decisions and judgments. To conclude, in accordance with Shaftsbury’s concept of moral judgment as “an attempted synthesis of two elements: one, an intuitive process in which one responds directly to moral objects, being either attracted or repelled by them; and two, a logical or discursive process utilizing such standards as the good of the whole and consistency” (209), Fielding designed his characters of Sophia and Squire Allworthy to demonstrate that the intelligence and reason alone do not lead to the right conclusions unless they are combined with the ability to consider intuition and sentiment. 38 6. Conclusion As I have demonstrated on the four chosen issues which are present in the works of both Henry Fielding and the Earl of Shaftesbury, the literal and philosophical concept of the main characters in Fielding’s novel Tom Jones reflects the theory of moral sense advocated by the Earl of Shaftesbury and expressed in the collection of his essays called Characteristics of Men, Manners, Opinions, Times. Conformable with Shaftsbury’s theory, Fielding illustrates the difference between good and evil, the moral and the immoral, on the example of the antagonistic characters of Tom Jones and Blifil. Also, he presents the principle and basis of the virtue and vice, as well as the relationship between the self-affections and social affections, which is the key criterion for the moral judgment of human nature. Then, using the method of contrasting, Fielding demonstrates Shaftsbury’s idea of the importance of liberty and balance of affections in a man on the positive example of Squire Allworthy and the negative one of Squire Western. Besides, by ridiculing the categorized characters of the priest Thwackum and the philosopher Square, he reveals the hypocrisy in the society of his times, criticizes its deficiencies and questions its values, using the theme of human naturalness and the deformed perception of prudence, which he again illustrates on the characters of Tom and Blifil – the symbols of natural affections and unnatural wickedness, respectively. Also, Fielding mirrors Shaftesbury’s concept of the moral development of a man in the portrayal of the main hero of his book who struggles through the difficulties of adolescence to achieve the moral maturity and the virtue of prudence along with his beloved idol Sophia. Finally, reflecting Shaftsbury’s idea of moral judgment, Fielding contrasts the characters of beautiful Sophia and Squire Allworthy to stress the significance of 39 sentiment and intuition, not only intelligence and rationality, in the making of right judgments on people. In brief, by incorporating the theory of morals into his conception of the main characters in Tom Jones, Fielding managed not only to dignify his satire, but also to create a close connection between the philosophical theory of Shaftesbury and the real world of people which he portrayed it in his book. Moreover, by applying the test of ridicule, he revealed the hypocrisy in the British society of his time and he questioned its wrong values, offering, at the same time, the scale of new ones, which are truly virtuous and truly moral. 40 7. Works cited: Alter, Robert. Fielding and the Nature of the Novel. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. 1968. Battestin, Martin C. Twentieth Century Interpretations of Tom Jones: a Collection of Critical Essays. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall. 1968. Battestin, Martin C. “Fielding's Definition of Wisdom: Some Functions of Ambiguity and Emblem in Tom Jones”. ELH. Vol. 35, No. 2. (Jun., 1968): 188-217. 21 Nov 2007. Fielding, Henry. The History of Tom Jones: a Foundling. Chicago: Encyclopaedia Britannica. 1952 Grean, Stanley. Shaftesbury’s Philosophy of Religion and Ethics: a Study in Enthusiasm. Ohio: Ohio University Press. 1967 Jenkins, Elizabeth. Henry Fielding. London: Home & Van Thal. 1947. Johnson, Maurice O. Fielding’s Art of Fiction: Eleven Essays on Shamela, Joseph Andrews, Tom Jones, and Amelia. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. 1961. Kelleher, Paul.: "'The glorious lust of doing good': Tom Jones and the virtues of sexuality." Novel. Vol.38, No.2/3. (2005): 165-92. 9 Jan 2008. abell&forward=critref_ft>. 41 Lockwood, Thomas. “Matter and Reflection in Tom Jones”. EHL. Vol. 45, No. 2. (Summer, 1978): 226-235. 21 Nov 2007. Loftis, John E. “Trials and the shaping of identity in Tom Jones.” Studies in the Novel (Univ. of North Texas, Denton). Vol. 34, No. 2. (Spring 2002): 1-20. 9 Jan 2008. rd=critref_ft> Rostvig, Maren-Sofie. “New perspectives on Fielding’s narrative art”. Papers from the First Nordic Conference for English Studies. S.I.: s.n., 1981. 183-97. Shaftesbury, Anthony Ashley Cooper, Earl of. Characterisctics of Men, Manners, Opinions, Times. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1999 Wandless, William H.: "Narrative pain and the moral sense: toward an ethics of suffering in the long eighteenth century." Literature and Medicine. Vol.24, No.1. (2005): 51-69. 9 Jan 2008. d=critref_ft> Yüklə 191,47 Kb. Dostları ilə paylaş:
|