1974> Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik, Leipzig, 1974, H. 3. — S. 251–265.

Since Walter Scott H. Fielding has been called "the father of novel writing in England". In ten years (1742–1752) he enriched English fiction by four very interesting works. Besides, all those works differ from one another in genre aspect. The difference becomes especially conspicious when the writer's first novel The History of the Life of the late Mr. Jonathan Wild the Great is compared with The History of the Adventures of Joseph Andrews, and of his Friend Mr. Abraham Adams created a year later. Jonathan Wild is the only satirical and allegorical novel in Fielding's heritage, while Joseph Andrews as well as The History of Tom Jones, a Foundling and Amelia written later are realistic novels of everyday life. It is in this genre modification of fiction, that Fielding was to make his weightiest utterance as an artist.
Of course, Fielding's realistic novels are not isolated from the main line of development of this genre. Fielding followed certain patterns to which he openly referred in the subtitle of Joseph Andrews ("written in imitation of the manner of Cervantes"), in the first chapter of the thirteenth book of Tom Jones, and in The Covent-Garden Journal. It is mainly Don Quixote; the others are Scarron's Le roman comique, Gil Blas by Le Sage and Marivaux's novels.1 He also had his "anti-patterns", some genre varieties of fiction which were deliberately rejected by Fielding.
He referred to these "anti-patterns" both in Joseph Andrews and Tom Jones. He did not appreciate the precious romances of French origin (like D'Urphé's Astrée), because they are neither very instructive nor entertaining. He is equally determined in rejecting burlesque as genre admitting its validity, however, "in the diction". Biographies of the outstanding people fashionable at the time - the so-called "apologies", like An Apology for the Life of Colley Cibber, Comedian or C. Middleton's Life of Cicero, served as the third "anti-pattern" for the great novelist. Richardson's Pamela, parodied by Fielding in Shamela and some chapters of Joseph Andrews, was also classified by him as apology. Thus his books are neither precious romances, nor burlesques, nor apologies, nor...
It is remarkable that Fielding defining the genre of his books did not make use of such terms as "romance" and "novel" designating the old and the new types of fiction. It is rather surprising that Edmund Gosse in his well-known book made a reference to "Henry Fielding's romances". Fielding not only avoided this genre definition but mocked at it. In the first chapter of the thirteenth book of the History of Tom Jones he ironically speaks about "Monsieur Romance's surprising tricks", and twenty years before it in the play The Author's Farce Fielding had depicted the figure of Mrs. Novel as one of the spirits entertaining the Goddess Nonsense.

In the preface to Joseph Andrews Fielding suggested an original definition of the genre of his book, which later became widely popular: "comic epic poem in prose". Fieldingian scholars have no doubts that the History of Tom Jones is another "comic epic poem in prose".3 But then what is a "comic epic"?

The principal features as well as the definition of this genre modification were expounded by Fielding in the preface to Joseph Andrews, some additions being made in the initial chapters of the three books of this "History". The main peculiarities of the new genre are implied by the definition itself: Fielding declares the epical character of his novel4, but, unlike ancient authors, he writes it in prose, preferring both in sentiments and diction "light and ridiculous" to "grave and solemn". In the eighteen prolegomenous chapters of Tom Jones the novelist made considerable additions to the list of the comic epic's features.

To Fielding as well as to most English novelists of his time normative aesthetics was absolutely alien. He did not establish any a priori norms to be severely observed in his creative activity. As Wilbur Cross had remarked, with Fielding "the imaginative faculty worked in the main not from theory to observation, but from observation to theory". The problem "Fielding as theoretician of the novel" is no doubt lawful: he was the first among the thinkers and the writers of the Enlightenment (before Rousseau, Wieland and Blankenburg) to suggest such a wealth of significant ideas regarding this genre of fiction. However, it will scarcely make sense to try to solve this problem only on the material of theoretical judgements contained in the four prefaces of Joseph Andrews and the eighteen introductory chapters of Tom Jones as it was done, for instance, by J. Watson. However interesting his judgements of literature might be, Henry Fielding was not a literary scholar and attached greater importance to the integrity of his works than to the system character of his theoretical conception.

Though Fielding's theoretical ideas, extracted from the prefaces and initial chapters, are undoubtedly interesting, their significance, however, increases when they are analysed in correlation with the whole literary text. The features of "comic epic poem", enumerated by the author of Joseph Andrews and Tom Jones, are perceived as a set of rules and nothing more. But the same rules in the novels' context (i. e. the rules substantiated by their artistic realization) produce quite a different impression — that of a system. Analysis of these theoretical points in correlation with the artistic practice would help, in my opinion, to avoid some mechanism and to bring to light the most significant principles of Fielding's poetics.
Depiction of life in the forms of life itself is one of the most important principles of "comic epic poem in prose". The author of Tom Jones warns a contemporary writer against spirits, elfs, fairies and all sorts of fantastics; nevertheless Fielding is not satisfied by the single demand that "the picture must be after nature itself" (XIV, 1). Besides, creating his "epic poem", his attention is not attracted by the remote past. The combination of the traditionally high ("epic") and the low ("comic") is expressed not only in the diction but first of all in the depiction of contemporary everyday life. It was ancient and middle-aged epic poetry, in which as well as in other "high genres" every power and privilege, every significance and loftiness leaves the field of familiar contact for the sake of the distance plan... Contemporary reality, the fluctuating and the transient, the 'low', present life without beginning and end was a subject for description only in the low genres...

The task of a novelist is apprehended by Fielding as distinct from that of a historian. Thus a historian must be interested in the most fantastical things, if they occurred in reality; while a writer, and Fielding often proves it ironically, proceeding from the opposite, is interested not in the exceptional but in the typical, common, being, however, entitled to the use of imagination. Thus Fielding the theoretician is in complete agreement with Aristotle's idea that poetry is more philosophical than history. True, in this case it is scarcely possible to speak of following Aristotle directly, because such comprehension of poetry was in general use in that age, and Fielding's reference to Stagirite is tinged with irony: "It is, I think, the opinion of Aristotle; or if not, it is the opinion of some wise man, whose authority will be as weighty, when it is as old..." (VIII, 1).

The same striving for generalization guides Fielding in creating his characters. In Joseph Andrews he declared his intention to describe "not men, but manners; not an individual, but a species" (III, 1). The same principle, but in a different form, is declared in the epigraph to Tom Jones: "Mores hominum multorum vidit." The word "multorum" is not accidental in the epigraph to the "comic epic poem", for which a great variety of characters and situations is essential.

Rejecting precious romances, Fielding chose new personages for his novels — persons of the lower estates. Both "comic epic poems" abound in such characters, secondary and major alike. Parson Adams is not of noble origin, Fanny Andrews (Goodwill) is the daughter of common parents, and the main characters of both "histories" make their journey within the limits of the novels (up to final recognition) as common people. In the preface to Joseph Andrews the novelist states that the presence of "persons of inferior rank" in the novel enables him to depict "inferior manners". Incidentally, this was regarded as a grave shortcoming of Fielding's novels by some of his contemporaries including Samuel Johnson himself, and S. Richardson wrote about Tom Jones in one of his private letters:

What reason has he to make his Tom illegitimate, in an age where keeping is become a fashion? Why did he make him a common what shall I call it? - and a kept fellow, the lowest of all fellows, yet in love with a young creature who was traipsing after him, a fugitive from her father's house? — Why did he draw his heroine so fond, so foolish, and so insipid? — Indeed, he has one excuse. He knows not how to draw a delicate woman. He has not been accustomed to such a company...9

Even the virtuous personages of Joseph Andrews and Tom Jones could not be attractive to Richardson, for whom "the virtues of Fielding's heroes were the vices of a truly good man"10. Undoubtedly, the creator of Pamela and Clarissa was shocked not by the "inferior rank" of Fielding's characters: Richardson's heroines were also common people; besides, there are many noblemen — from provincial squires to high society — in Fielding's books, in spite of his democratic sympathies. Richardson was scandalized by the inferiority of Fielding's characters' moral practices.

In Richardson's opinion, the main character of a novel, certainly positive, must express the writer's moral credo and serve as a model for imitation. It is true about Pamela, Clarissa Harlowe, and Sir Charles Grandison. Accusing Fielding of excessive "prescriptiveness", Richardson thinks that Joseph Andrews, Tom Jones, Sophia Western present moral standards suggested by their creator. Thus the author of Pamela approaches Fielding's works with his own, Richardsonian measure (in this case it is possible to ignore Richardson's personal dislike of Fielding). By the way, as Pushkin said, every writer "must be judged in accordance with the laws acknowledged by himself". The more so if the writer formulates these laws himself, as Fielding did.

Fielding and Richardson used opposite principles in creating their characters. Therefore it is impossible to accept the idea that Blifil and Allworthy are made in a Richardsonian manner: one as an embodiment of "diabolical depravity" and another as a pattern of "angelic perfection"11.

Evidently, if we can extract Richardson's characters from the context of the novel and analyse them in a personological aspect, it is not advisable to perform a similar operation on Fielding's characters. If Parson Adams, Tom Jones and some episodical figures present a certain interest (though considerably diminished outside the artistic system of the novel), other characters (including Blifil and Allworthy mentioned by N. Itkina) are significant only within the limits of this system, in correlation with its other components. They are rather personage-functions than personage-types.

The functional significance of the characters of Joseph Andrews becomes especially noticeable when we consider the ethical problems of the book. As the English scholar Michael Irwin writes, every personage of the novel "represents some moral standpoint"12. And though sometimes Fielding makes Parson Adams or Joseph the mouthpiece of his ideas, his characters are not reasoners, and analysis of the whole set of "represented standpoints" enables us to understand the author's position.

Comparing different standpoints, we can apprehend one of the most important principles underlying the system of Fielding's fiction: the principle of contrast. The novelist will write about the function of the "vein of contrast" later in the introductory chapter to the fifth book of the History of Tom Jones, but this law was also essential in the first "comic epic poem".

The meaning of a character's moral position can be discovered through confrontation13. The novel presents a number of such oppositions: Joseph — Pamela, Pamela — Mr. Booby, Mr. Booby — Lady Booby, Parson Adams — Parson Trulliber, Parson Adams — Parson Barnabas, Parson Adams — Peter Pounce, etc. Each one of these oppositions scarcely requires comment. As a rule, two characters, two members of an opposition, have something essential in common: estate affiliation, profession, bonds of relationship, joint journey, etc. This common feature is the basis of the opposition, which is realized on the moral plane: kindness — hypocrisy, chastity — corruptness.

One character can be involved in a number of such oppositions. This mainly refers to the central figures of the "Cervantesian" — in spirit as well as in form — novel, who are travelling from London to Booby Hall: Joseph and Adams (Fanny's role in correlations of personages is not significant). True, these two characters lack the dialectical contrast which exists between Don Quixote and his armour-bearer; however, different (if not contrary) standpoints are sometimes to be observed in their dialogues.

Following the law of contrast in the choice, depiction and grouping of the novel's personages, Fielding is trying to make his characters lifelike in all their manifestations. It is not accidental that in the preface to Joseph Andrews the author sharply opposes characters and caricatures, positively dissociating himself from a caricaturist's platform. Such demarcation is not only characteristic of Fielding's artistic individuality, but in some way can be regarded as a tribute to the aesthetic trends of the age: Fielding's friend, the greatest English artist of that time, W. Hogarth, for instance, opposed character and caricature in a similar manner.

In the History of Tom Jones the novelist follows the same rule: the novel also presents some contrasting pairs of characters, and new meanings are revealed in these oppositions. Tom Jones — Blifil, Allworthy — Western, Squire Western — his sister, Thwackum — Square, etc.14 A striking variety of the bases for opposition, as well as of the character of opposition itself, can be observed here: the author opposes different moral platforms, different views on education, art, politics, different temperaments, and so forth. Jones's main virtues, and first of all good nature, could not be comprehended without Blifil. Squire Western would not be so vivid and full-blooded if it were not for Squire Allworthy. If there were no Squire Western's and his sister's permanent quarrels, we would know much less about the squire's character and temperament, about the relationships between the London and the provincial nobility, and about the differences in the states of mind of the English nobility during the Jacobite rebellion in 1745.
The system of oppositions, involving the various characters, is even more complicated than that of the first "comic epic poem". Contrasting pairs, with the community prevailing over the differences, are more numerous here. Such is, for instance, the pair Thwackum and Square. The two tutors of Tom and Blifil seem to be diametrically opposite as regards their inclinations and are engaged in permanent polemics. The philosopher and the divine could not agree on any question excepting one: both preferred Blifil to the foundling. "In one point only they agreed, which was in all their discourses on morality never to mention the word goodness", Fielding wrote (III, 3). This statement actually levels the ethical positions of Thwackum and Square, because goodness occupies the first place in the hierarchy of moral values acknowledged by Fielding. The same law of contrast underlies not only the system of personages, but also individual characters. In the first chapter of the tenth book Fielding writes:

"... if there be enough of goodness in a character to engage the admiration and affection of a well-disposed mind, though there should appear some of those little blemishes, quas humana parum cavit natura, they will raise our compassion rather than our abhorrence. Indeed, nothing can be of more moral use than the imperfections which are seen in examples of this kind; since such form a kind of surprise more apt to affect and dwell upon our minds, than the faults of very vicious and wicked persons. The foibles and vices of men in whom there is great mixture of good, become more glaring objects from the virtues which contrast (underlined by me — M. S.) them, and show their deformity..."

The author did not digress from this rule creating some of his second-rate personages (Partridge, Mrs. Waters etc.) and especially in the character of Tom Jones himself. However, as already mentioned, there are some personages in the novel (Blifil, for instance) whose role is solely functional: isolated from the context, they are not interesting. Thus while Blifil and some other characters are somewhat conventional, Tom Jones is an entirely non-conventional character.15

Following this rule, the author of Tom Jones does not intend at all to present his hero as a moral standard or, so to say, does not make his positive character an ideal one. The latter phenomenon, which is rather characteristic of the works created after the standards of normative aesthetics, can be observed in Richardson's novels: it is not without reason that Lovelace is a more vital character than Pamela, Clarissa, and especially Sir Charles Grandison. Regarded outside the context, Joseph Andrews seems to be congenial to the "ideal" heroes (even in the parody scenes). Incidentally, Fielding's choice of such a hero was determined to a great extent by his parodical intention; but gradually the more full-blooded Parson Adams comes to occupy not less important a place in the novel than Joseph.16

Indeed, such a displacement of the central character is determined in this case by increasing picaresque elements in Fielding's novel. Some investigators pointed out that Fielding was greatly indebted to the picaresque tradition. However, in his books the picaresque trend is manifested, in my opinion, not so much at the character level (in personages’ actions with inner motivation), as at the level of plot and composition. Amazing as it is, some episodes and even series of episodes in the "comic epic poems" are perceived as picaresque ones, in spite of the apparent absence of a picaro. While in Joseph Andrews the simpleton Adams often takes the part of a picaro, provoking comical adventures, in Tom Jones there is not even a constant simpleton (unless it is Partridge who sometimes claims that part). As regards the picaresque strain in the second novel, it is determined partly by the time of narration, but mainly by the construction of the novel, by the organisation of the artistic material.

Generally known is Coleridge's enthusiastic judgement: "What a master of composition Fielding was! Upon my word, I think the Oedipus Tyrannus, the Alchemist and Tom Jones the three most perfect plots ever planned..."17 This high opinion was shared by many other famous men of letters, including Walter Scott himself. In aspect of composition Tom Jones is really the most accomplished and integral "construction" among the fiction of European Enlightenment. In spite of the immense genre closeness between the two novels of Fielding, it is obvious that the writer makes use of artistic space in different ways in each of the novels.18 Joseph Andrews, written "in imitation of the manner of Cervantes", is a novel of the highway, like Don Quixote. The artistic space of the novel is first and foremost the highway of England, along which Joseph, Fanny and Adams travel, getting into different significant situations. This space is linear, strictly limited and marked with the sign of direction: the characters are travelling from London to Lady Booby's estate. It is the spatial axis of the plot of the novel.

Such construction of the novel in the best way corresponds to one of the main principles of "comic epic", declared in the preface to the novel: the necessary presence of a plot as a series of events. Fielding writes that fable and action in a "comic epic poem" must be "light and ridiculous" (but not "grave and solemn"). The Cervantesian scheme of the novel perfectly conformed with this demand. The dynamism of action, indicated by many Fieldingian scholars, is, to a great extent, created by the presence of fable. The last book of the novel, the action of which takes place in Booby Hall, is also marked by the presence of fable.

One reservation is necessary, however. Discussing the linearness and direction of the artistic space I mean, strictly speaking, not the whole novel, but its greater part — roughly three fourths. The story of Joseph's and Adams's wanderings covers the second half of the first and the second and third (the most voluminous) book of the novel. The first ten chapters of the first book contain the laconic pre-history of Joseph and his journey; in the fourth book the action swiftly moves to the final recognition.19 These parts of the novel are less autonomous: they are connected with the initial parody intention (Pamela's presence sets the parody tone in the fourth book) and contain some literary reminiscences.20
In the first "comic epic poem" symmetry is obvious only in the arrangement of the characters. During his journey, Joseph must protect his virtue from such lustful creatures as Lady Booby, Mrs. Slipslop, and Betty the chambermaid; on the other hand, Fanny Goodwill must withstand the attacks of a beau, a squire and a rogue...21

Vicious Parson Trulliber is juxtaposed to virtuous Parson Adams, with Parson Barnabas, whose Christianity is only verbal, in between. In the denouement the secret of Joseph's birth as well as that of Fanny is revealed. However, there is no symmetry in the plot and compositional solution of Joseph Andrews.

In summary representation the artistic space of both "histories" may be regarded as identical: in both cases it is London, the countryside and the roads connecting them. Only the direction of movement is changed: Joseph and Adams go from London to the country, while Tom Jones with Partridge (who joined him) goes from the country to London. On closer observation it appears that the artistic space of the second "history" is considerably wider than that of the first. In Joseph Andrews London and Booby Hall signify only the limits of the characters' journey. In themselves they are not very significant: the place does not determine the events — Joseph's adventures in London (the first ten chapters of the first book) could have taken place in the country as well, and the Booby Hall incidents of the fourth book could have taken place, say, in Tow-wouse's inn.

In the History of Tom Jones the countryside and London are as significant parts of the artistic space as the highway. The hero's adventures in the house of Allworthy, in the capital, or in Upton's inn could only have taken place in these particular places and nowhere else. The greater, in comparison with the first novel, independence from the Cervantesian scheme of the novel is manifest in the fact that each of the three indicated parts of the novel's artistic space is, to a certain extent, autonomous, in spite of their obvious interrelation. In this connection the problem of structural symmetry of this novel acquires special interest.

It was observed more than once that the novel consists of eighteen books and is easily divided into three parts containing six books each. The action of books I–VI embraces the hero's life at Allworthy's estate, books VII–XII describe his journey to London, and books XIII–XVIII depict his life in London. The spatial symmetry is tightly connected with the construction of the plot and system of characters. For instance, precisely in the midst of the first "hexateuch" the heroine Sophia Western appears and since that moment the reader's attention is equally distributed between the estate of Allworthy and Western's estate, which is symmetrical to the former within the limits of the artistic space of the novel. In the second "hexateuch", the reader alternatively watches the journey of the hero and that of the heroine, who follows the same route but separately. The analogous parallel in the lives of Tom and Sophia can be also observed in the London chapters.
The principle of symmetry also dominates in the grouping of the personages of the novel. In the first "hexateuch", besides the principal characters (Tom, Sophia, Blifil) and Partridge's group (Partridge, his wife, Jenny Jones), there are two symmetrical groups of characters. These are Allworthy's group (the squire himself, his sister, Thwackum, Square, servants, the Seagrims etc.) and Western's group (the squire himself, his sister, Supple, servants etc.).22 In the third "hexateuch" the new (in comparison with the previous books) personages can be divided into two opposite groups: the aristocrats with their environment (Lady Bellaston, Lord Fellamar etc.) and Mrs. Miller's group (the Millers, the Nightingales).

Sophia is accompanied by Honora as Tom Jones is accompanied by Partridge; Allworthy has a sister Bridget and Western has Mrs. Western; Allworthy has a minister Thwackum and Western has a minister Supple; in London Jones is pursued by Lady Bellaston while Sophia is pursued by Lord Fellamar and so forth. It is remarkable that in this case the principle of symmetry does not at all contradict the principle of contrast which was expounded earlier, and some contrasting pairs of personages form the same symmetry in the artistic system of the novel.

The fates of some characters are also marked by symmetry. For instance, Jenny Jones appears as the foundling's mother in the beginning of the novel, but at the end of it she — this time as Mrs. Waters — helps to disclose the secret of Tom Jones's birth. It is evident that the principle of symmetry performs a structural function in this case as well as in others.

In operating the artistic time the author of Tom Jones does not tend to symmetry at all. The problem of artistic time in Fielding's "comic epic poems" needs special attention. In the introductory chapter to the second book of Tom Jones the author argues with the creators of "apologies" and "lives":

"Such histories as these do, in reality, very much resemble a newspaper, which consists of just the same number of words, whether there be any news in it or not. They may, likewise, be compared to a stage-coach, which performs constantly the same course, empty as well as full... Now it is our purpose in the ensuing pages to pursue a contrary method. When any extraordinary scene presents itself..., we shall spare no pains, nor paper to open it at large to our reader; but if whole years should pass without producing anything worthy his notice, we shall not be afraid of a chasm in our history..."

In this laconic chapter Fielding's position is presented very clearly. The writer rejects the traditional chronological principle of narration and not only establishes strict temporal limits for the "history", but also declares his right to operate freely with artistic time depending on the selection of artistic material for the narration.

In the subtitle of every book of the novel, beginning with the second, the novelist indicates the temporal limits of action; thus we can see that the whole action of the novel (excluding the two first chapters of the first book and the last) chapter of the last book) goes into twenty years and eight months. However, "the temporal flow of Fielding's novel is of different scales"23.

As the events become more dramatic — i.e., as the significance of the depicted events increases — the time of action of the books diminishes. In the three first books it is nineteen years, the fourth book's time is a year, the fifth is "somewhat longer than half a year", the sixth is near three weeks; the time of action in the rest of the books (VII–XVIII) varies from twelve days to twelve hours. The most significant events in the life of the twenty-year-old hero go into the span of two months (books VI–XVIII). It is during that stretch of time (the late autumn of 1745) that Jones's individual fate and the fate of England cross several times. When analysing those episodes of the History of Tom Jones we see that the Fieldingian principle of operating with artistic time consists in the fact that the significance of the depicted events is inversely proportional to the indicated duration of the episode.

Undoubtedly Fielding also kept this rule when creating Joseph Andrews (at least its temporal scheme is also marked by considerable strictness), but it is obvious that in the creation of Tom Jones he used this principle more freely, considering himself "the founder of a new province of writing". Besides the violation of the traditional chronological principle, there are some digressions from the sequence of narration in this novel: for instance, in the third chapter of the fourth book "the History goes back". The different temporal direction of action (quite a familiar device nowadays) in Fielding's novels was perceived by some of his contemporaries as an innovation and even a violation of rules. Such innovations introduced by Fielding were, undoubtedly, productive for the further development of the European novel.

As stated by Fielding, the principle of selection in approaching life material and of the construction of a novel indicates such a peculiarity of artistic time in "comic epics" as discretion. This specific feature is presented not only in the temporal reference of the depicted events, but also in the planning of the novels, in their division and subdivision.

In the initial chapter to the second book of Joseph Andrews Fielding wrote "of divisions in authors". In this chapter the author's thought balances between seriousness and irony: you cannot be sure whether he is serious or ironical. In his ironically rhetorical manner Fielding compares the works, subdivided into books and chapters, with a journey including stops in resting-places, and even with "butcher's jointing his meat"; he writes that, dividing his novels, he takes care of his reader's "obvious benefits". The text of Joseph Andrews, which is divided into four books, each subdivided into chapters, proves the seriousness of the author's compositional intentions declared by himself.

In the introductory chapters of the History of Tom Jones Fielding develops the same subject in a more detailed way. In the first chapter of the fourth book he mystifies the reader, stating that he is inclined to ornament his prose; meanwhile he quite seriously declares that, unlike narration in the "historians" mocked by Fielding, his narration is often interrupted. In the introductory chapter of the next, the fifth book, the writer informs the reader that the function of interrupting is performed in the "comic epic poems" by the introductory essays.

Though the author of Tom Jones insists on the necessity of an introductory essay in every book of "prosaic-comic-epic-writing", this rule is not strictly kept in the first "comic epic". Consisting of four books, Joseph Andrews contains a preface and three introductory essays which are not connected with the narrative part of the book and its contents; the first chapter of the fourth book, which deals with "the arrival of Lady Booby and the rest at Booby Hall", does not differ from the other chapters of this book functionally and is not an introductory essay in the Fieldingian sense.

In The History of Tom Jones this rule is stated more seriously and followed with greater consistency. The presence of an initial chapter in each of the eighteen books is a structural sign of this novel: not a single one can be extracted from the novel without damage to its structural unity. It is remarkable that the first French translator (in the formal sense of the word) of Tom Jones, Pierre-Antoine de La Place, had arbitrarily excluded sixteen introductory chapters out of eighteen. The author of the next complete translation (1796), "citizen Davaux", was absolutely justified in warning readers that those French readers who had read La Place's translation could not have an adequate idea of Fielding's novel.

Analysing the correlation of the initial chapters with the rest of them in each book, we can observe how Fielding's favourite "vein of contrast" is presented at the level of composition. In the introductory chapters, unlike the others, the characters of the novel are absent and the author communicates with the reader directly, having no need of a mediator like Alcofribas Nasier or Cid Hamet Ben Engeli. The initial chapters in every book are isolated (strictly delimited) from the narrative part of the novel, but we cannot say that about the interpolated stories — the story of the Man of the Hill or the "history" of Mrs. Fitzpatrick. Thus, the prolegomenous chapter stands in the relation of opposition to the narrative chapters. The unity of every book is the foundation of the opposition; the introductory essay and the narrative chapters are united in one segment of the text.

Fielding's intrusions are necessarily "defensive"... since the novel was not yet an established form; the century demanded moralizing commentary, with the result that no novelist was able to achieve a complete fusion between the critic-moralist and the creative artist".24

When we examine Fielding's "comic epics" in relation to their genesis, it is possible to some extent to agree with such a statement: the novel was not yet an established form in England and the rationalistic tradition of the age was manifest in the prolegomenous chapters. But analysing the novels and especially Tom Jones as to their structure, I cannot agree with I. Sherwood at all.
Extracted from the context of the novel, the introductory chapters are, undoubtedly, of great interest to an investigator, because they provide additional information on the novelist's literary, aesthetic, political, moral and other views. It is scarcely possible to agree with S. Maugham, who believed that Fielding's prefaces could be admired only by those "who were not interested in the novel as a novel"25. It is obvious, however, that the isolated essays have no artistic value apart from their purely stylistic merits, and the novel without the eighteen initial chapters would lose its unity because the adhesion of plot and non-plot elements, which is one of the structural principles of the "comic epic poem", would be broken. It is equally obvious that in Tom Jones a "complete fusion between the critic-moralist and the creative artist" had been accomplished; more than two hundred years' life of the novel is sufficiently convincing evidence of it.

The English scholar Ian Watt was quite right in saying that Fielding's significant distinction from his predecessors Defoe and Richardson was his craving for epic form.26 This craving was already fixed in Fielding's definition of the new genre created by him: "comic epic poem in prose". Already Aristotle wrote in his Poetics that:

epic poetry must divide into the same species as tragedy; it must be either simple or complex, a story of character or one of suffering. Its parts... must be the same, as it requires peripeties, discoveries, and scenes of suffering just like tragedy. Lastly, the thought and diction in it must be good in their way. All these elements appear in Homer first; and he has made due use of them. His two poems are each examples of construction, the Iliad simple and a story of suffering, the Odyssey complex (there is discovery throughout it) and a story of character..."27

Correlating Aristotle's judgement with Fielding's novels, we can observe there all the signs of epical genre defined in the Poetics.

Yielding to the temptation to go further and compare the "comic epics" with the first epic poems of ancient times, we arrive at the conclusion that it was not the Iliad, but the Odyssey that Fielding took as his model for the plot development and compositional scheme. An indirect indication of this was made by Fielding himself in the preface to his sister Sarah Fielding's novel David Simple:

the fable consists of a series of separate adventures, detached from and independent of each other; yet all tending to one great end, so that those who should object want of unity of action here, may, if they please, or, if they dare, fly back with their objection in the face even of the Odyssey itself...28

The more epical character of Fielding's novels in comparison with those of his forerunners is also underlined by the panoramic depiction of English life (especially in Tom Jones) and by its historicism, which is manifest at different levels of the text. Nevertheless, the set of epical components is not exhausted by the above-mentioned peculiarities.
Fielding was the first English novelist to show preference for first-person narration (Defoe, as well as Swift and Richardson, had used the third-person type of narration), this manner being more suited to the epical character of the work. While in Defoe's and Richardson's books two different tasks — narration and commenting events — are fulfilled by the same figure, in Fielding's books these tasks may be separated: the story is told in the third person, but some character, like Joseph Andrews, may comment on the events. True, the author of the History of Tom Jones, as a rule, takes advantage of his right to comment on the narration in propria persona, but these comments are often apt to be ironical. In such cases it is irony that prevents the writer from moralizing, which would not be in keeping with the epical strain.

In Fielding's novels even the parody scenes, including the burlesque ones, are sustained in the epical character. In those episodes Fielding parodies the style of the ancient epic poems. It is especially characteristic of the "battle" scenes, like the "battle" with dogs (Joseph Andrews) or Molly Seagrim's "battle" with the women at the churchyard; here you can see parody reminiscences of the Iliad. A combination of low plot29 with a lofty heroic style produces burlesque, "admitted in the diction". But this kind of burlesque is also epical: its reference to the parodied text is a sufficient proof. In the "odysseys" of Joseph Andrews and Tom Jones Fielding managed to achieve an organic unity of the comical and the epical strains.

It is one of Fielding's many artistic discoveries in fiction, a discovery which has greatly affected the further development of the novel in the world. I should like to argue against another of J. Watson's declarations to the effect that the activity of Fielding the novelist was a "false start", because he had no school and could not create a tradition.30 Of course, The History of Tom Jones, a Foundling is a unique work in the history of English and world literature; the structure of this novel was not exactly reproduced by any followers of Fielding apart from some unsuccessful imitations. Fielding's impact on the further development of the novel is not superficial and is revealed not in the imitation or schoolish observation of some of his rules, but often — in creative polemics. It is widely known that such congenial authors as T. G. Smollett and Laurence Sterne, though so far remote from the writer, are both greatly indebted to Fielding. But the impact of Fielding's tradition cannot be confined to the eighteenth century alone.

The European novel was developing from the epical poem and, as far back as the seventeenth century, attempts had been made to apply to it some rules of epic. Fielding, who was creating a bourgeois épopée in prose, played a special part in this process, which was duly appraised by Scott. Regarding Ivanhoe, Waverley, The Monastery or The Talisman from that point of view, we could find the epical construction in them.31

And following W. Scott, a new page in the history of the European and world novel began, and its development demonstrates the effectiveness of a tradition founded by Fielding, who was charactirized by Byron as "the prose Homer of human nature."