Though this is a novel with femininity and feminized interaction, so far no agreement has been found on whether it is a feminist novel or not. Carolyn Woodward discusses the utopian issue in her article “Sarah Fielding’s Self-Destructing Utopia: The Adventures of David Simple” and illustrates it as a “feminocentric ” novel searching for utopia (75). There are not many critical papers demonstrating the “utopian” and “feminine” focuses in David Simple and this one of Woodward is the most noticeable one. In Woodward’s designation, the weak feminine qualities are the main reason for the final collapse; the feminine
characteristics are praise-worthy and failure-charged simultaneously. In the article, Woodward clarifies the feminized qualities of the characters into two kinds: one is the positive feminine nurturance and sharing, the other is the weak feminine passivity and innocence. She indicates that the former kind enables the alternative utopia to be different from other utopian blueprints, while the passivity and problematic innocence lead the family into destruction and further cause the fall of David Simple. Hence, the utopia is destroyed by its inner characteristics as a “self-destructing utopia.”16 However, Woodward in the essay repeatedly claims that David clearly rejects “patriarchal values” when their alternative utopia is formed, which is not really an obvious observation (68). For Woodward, the dismissing of the masculine patriarchal capitalism exemplifies the entitlement to form a feminized utopia because the good-place finally gets rid of the capital selfishness and all the unfriendly features in life. Thus, it is meaningful for David to be different from other contemporary eighteenth-century males who governed powerfully in both business and family. It is said that David totally forsakes the male priority for building their little family, and learns humbly from his female friends. No doubt, David is enthusiastic about learning
16 A good portion of Woodward’s arguments is coherent to this thesis, in particular the emphasis on the self-destructing utopia. However, Woodward’s following claim on David seems to be problematic, which will be further discussed in this chapter.
worldly knowledge by asking explanations of “Toad-Eater” (103) and the term “making a Butt of anyone ” (96) from Cynthia. Most importantly, the family members even share everything equally in the household. Such a sharing family indicates that “no one person in the community holds authority, ” illustrating the success of feminist utopia (Woodward 68).
This part is highly valued by Woodward. The deadly ending of David Simple implies that it is impossible to seek the new- gendered refuge from the patriarchal world because the
negative consequence in the feminine utopia is too strong to be overcome by those progressive qualities. In light of this, the feminine utopians are good enough in moral advancing, but not strong enough in dealing with the world. That is coherent with the ending in which a glorious death is presented in both dignity and poverty.
There are many convincing points in Woodward’s article in explaining the collapse of the feminine Utopia, while her other arguments are far less so. It is too optimistic for Woodward to consider David Simple as a feminist utopian struggle; and she is too soon to conclude David as a feminist male character. David may be feminine, but he is certainly not a feminist because he is still in possession of authority in many of the family affairs.
Though feminine virtues are what people embraced in forming the miniature utopia, there are proofs to confirm that the patriarchal power has not left the family yet.
In David Simple, all the family members, including the newborn babies, are described as tender and benevolent, and David is the most sensitive one among all of them; in other words, he possesses more feminine qualities than any of the characters, superior to either the female ones or the infants. Being a well-admired protagonist, David obtains the feminized
sensibility and follows his mind to build an ideal miniature society. Gathering a group of likeminded people, our protagonist continues his adventurous journey by overcoming the thorny path to the advanced family with humanly goodness. As the pioneer founder of their feminized good-place, David firmly believes that it is workable as long as his crew retains the merciful nature.
Like other contemporary males in the real world, David gradually situates himself to multiple roles in being son, brother, friend, husband, and father, to experience a variety of masculine roles in life. Fulfilling his responsibilities as son, brother, and friend, David, however, fails the part of being an ideal father and husband. Unlike common people, what David does to fulfill his roles reverses the traditional expectation, not following the teachings of the supposed behavior as well as those from his own ideal imagination. In the revised gender play, no longer are father and husband required to be masculine by taking full responsibility of family affairs. By contrast, mothers and the family replace father and husband to support the everyday need. During the beginning years of their happy family, David takes no responsibility for his own finances. He authorizes the right for a
land-lawsuit to Mr. Ratcliff for many years without doubting the belatedness of it. Unaware of his only possession, the properties, David is doomed to lead his family into bankruptcy.
In such circumstances, what David, the father and husband, can provide for his members is merely emotional support rather than material security, which is a rare case in the eighteenth century. In common understanding, to be over-sentimental is useless and unnecessary for a male, especially for one who cannot afford a family of his own. In this respect, their misfortune proves the belief of Mr. Orgueil— the compassion to be “very great weakness” of human beings, especially for the males (64). A father of weakness does not fit into a standard vision of masculinity, and David is very likely to be despised by the public if he were a real person. However, David is embraced passionately by his wife and children in the novel even if he fails to satisfy the family, since the family members come to join his new community not for the ordinary masculinity. It is his unselfish sharing and caring that lure people. David is not a typical father figure who works hard and is responsible for the economic needs of the family; in fact, David is much more like a mother figure, full of emotional reflections and good virtues. With his feminized features, David is mentally reliable and mature, appealing to his family to believe that they can succeed in the near
future.
The feminized features win the heart of people, convincing people of David ’s ideal friendship, and luring people to carry it out with him. Sara Gadeken asserts that David ’s simple quality makes him
[… ] arguably the first man of feeling in English literature. In this figure, Fielding struggles to create a gentle and compassionate man who is attractive to women without becoming himself an object of satire, carefully working against the
traditional figures of the henpecked husband, the fop, and the effete castrato. (546) His benevolence makes David a sympathetic male to women around him, thinking him as the one apart from other masculine villains. The strategy works on readers as well. Though the plan of a journey into real friendship and a sharing happy family is far from realistic, most of readers would be sympathetic to David and what he dreams for. The reading of a fulfilled utopia comforts readers for the impossibility of carrying out the too-good-to-be-true place in real life. It is undeniable that the ideal living style and the sensibility is welcomed and admired by most of the readers; some might be skeptical about his over-exaggerated feminized performance, yet most of the readers would regard the attitude superior.
Superiority is what convinces people into thinking the pursuit as a possible one, instead of the nature of forming a feminine utopia that persuades its readers of the utopian construction.
People think highly of these amicable feminine characteristics, ignoring the problematic financial disturbance of the David family.
Unlike Amazon, the city with merely women, David Simple excludes the outsiders from the family by gender performance rather than sex. As mentioned in the first chapter,
Fielding portrays her ideal place with feminine qualities to combat male-dominated
eighteenth-century society and concludes with an open ending that encourages all those who believe in it and irritates those who regard it as illusion. Gender performance is different from sexual identity in the novel; that is to say, even males are encouraged to join the utopia
as long as they possess feminine qualities. As a result, David is welcomed to shed tears whenever he wants; on the contrary, Cynthia can be the most “worldly” person who knows the best about the world.17 Natures of femininity, including benevolence, tenderness, unselfishness, and innocence, are shared among each family members. No contradictory argument is there to Woodward’s assertion in claiming their petite family as a feminine utopian community. We may find a feminine utopia warm and accessible, but we may not regard it the same as female ’s utopia; there is a lot of difference between the two terms, and I will return to this later in this chapter.
Displaying feminine qualities in male body, David plays the dual role of both woman and man. As a man with feminine qualities, he is supposed to combine both the gender advantages of the two sexes by supporting his family with both abundant necessities and sensible tenderness. But David never shows his inborn masculinity in the novel; he fails to do a good job on the revising roles and spoils the chance to be a better “man. ” The spiritual one helps little for the practical need in the family, but drags the whole family into poverty altogether. While out of money, what David can think of is to farm in their little land in order to support the need in his family and delight himself in thinking that “[h]ere will I set such a Root, because my Camilla likes it; here, such another, because it is my little David’s Favorite” (346). I am not arguing about the simple pleasure of David’s cultivating, but I do believe that there are many more down-to-earth jobs for him to do except farming.
Undoubtedly, those practical jobs, like that of Valentine in foreign countries, will earn much more money than farming his little garden; but David never thinks of other possibilities. To some extent, his masculinity is reduced into domesticity. He reacts similar to other
eighteenth century women stuck at home. The main reason to see David failing both the roles of feminine and masculine comes from his personal misconception on gender
17 David sheds tears in many scenes of David Simple, the most noticeable ones are at page 40, 41, and 133 in the Penguin edition; and Cynthia been regarded as the most worldly one by the narrator in page 113 and 170.
responsibility. In his early journey to true friendship, David often comes to judge people with their doings and their sex, and regards good women as those who take good care of their family. Obedience is what David appreciates in women long before he meets Cynthia and Camilla. He often judges women by their virtues as well as the chauvinist standard, especially the obedience to their husband.18 The notion of women as responsible for
housewifery often comes along with the concept of men as in charge of outer affairs, so that a balanced family can be constructed. However, the balance is scarcely listed by David.19 On the one hand, he makes the female characters responsible for domestic work; on the other hand, he never intends to work outside and in direct interaction with the outside world. He fails in either the domains that he that classifies himself.
David may not be a stereotype husband in some perspective, but it is clear to see that neither is he a feminist believer. Even though he possesses feminine qualities, he never does the “women’s job” at home. Cynthia and Camilla, working in the house all day long,
support the peaceful and lovely family. Their hard working for family is always ignored when
Cynthia and Camilla embraced every Opportunity of directing their Family Affairs when they could not have the Pleasure of conversing with their Husbands. … , it might easily have been imagined, that their whole Time had been taken up in what is called the Business of Housewifery: yet David, Valentine, and the old Gentleman, enjoyed so much of their amiable Conversation, that they could have almost
imagined every thing to have been done by Enchantment, and that Household Management had never employed their Thoughts; for no Noise or Bustle was ever heard, but Peace, Calmness, Concord, and Harmony resigned throughout the Ho use.
18 The most obvious instance is his prejudice on the carpenter’s wife (46).
19 Certainly, a family can also be equally in charge of husband and wife who both work outside and deal with domestic responsibilities, or another situation that husband doing housework at home and the wife working outside. Either of these situations is possible to make a balanced family. I personally hold no gender stereotype on housework and family responsibility. But that of David ’s is undoubtedly problematic.
(293)
Indicated from the passage, the women’s job at home is always the same of women in different class, even if she was living in a friendly community. Her duty is of little concern to the wealth in her family, in the eighteenth century, while the poor housewives are
responsible for everything her husband ignores, the upper class woman are also obligated for managing households rather than enjoy an unoccupied life. In eighteenth-century England, servants are common in wealthy families like that of David’s; as a result, Cynthia and
Camilla may not be fully responsible for all the housework for the servants will help in house keeping, but the two young wives certainly are “still burdened by the responsibilities of managing large and complex household” in the pre- industrial England while the feminine males in the house are completely free from the domestic duty (Legates 25). In any case, females are tagged with housework at that time and a woman with that good perseverance is always regarded as the virtuous one who enjoys her happy family life. Their dedication of lifelong hardworking to the utopian community is always ignored, or taken for granted.
Either one of the two possibilities on people ’s reflection about their contribution indicates the unspoken patriarchal system in the David family. Were not for the women who take care of all the family affairs, men cannot live with “Peace, Calmness, Concord, and Harmony
resigned throughout the House” (293). In light of this, the friendly community remains a patriarchal collection. Though both David and Valentine discard their conventional masculinity, especially their power, when dealing with the outside world, they ironically preserve the superiority within their household. In other words, the friendly sphere around characters ameliorates the unfriendly patriarchal injustice. The unfair situation is covered so perfectly that hardly any reader can recognize it. According to Woodward, David rejects all the patriarchal capitalism and thus become feminist to construct the feminine utopia. The statement is certainly problematic. The quoted paragraph above finds fault with the hypothesis of Woodward with clear exhibition of patriarchy in the David family: the males
maintain the patriarchal superiority and hold with overwhelming power over the family, so they are the authority. The deduction about masculine authority here conflicts with Woodward’s claims of the equal governing without any authorized party (Woodward 68).
Clear enough, the females do not join their fair utopia as the critic optimistically suggests.
Their family remains as a patriarchal system with an inner-masculine leader— David— to make all the important decisions except the domestic ones; unfortunately, David always makes wrong decisions. David takes the whole responsibility on decision without searching for the support from his family. He even makes the decision to borrow money form Mr.
Nichols, a loan that lead to the devastated fire (342). This is the most outward action David has done for his family, to borrow money from someone he does not know, a movement that finally shows him taking some responsibility for his family. But the self-asserted attempt ironically results in their following misfortunes. None of the family members is invited for discussion, and such an impromptu decision takes place when the worldliest
character— Cynthia— is abroad. Even though David Simple does not belong in the tradition of the realistic novel, it still brings out the concealed discrimination between sexes in the David family: when the men make decisions, women are forced to be obedient followers.
Nevertheless, David is always too simple in deciding family issues. Qualified as a virtuous model, David fails to protect his own family. The obedient sentiment can only bring them spiritual peace, confirming his crew that they are on the right track to benevolence. The narrator in novel regards David as a virtuous, but unrealistic persona, who “like Job, David Simple patiently submitted to the temporary Sufferings allotted” (310; emphasis in original).20 To put it somewhat cruelly, they are led by the simple- minded believer and to be defeated by the outside world during the risky journey without any disagreement.
20 The reason to put the comparison of Job right at the end of the Fifth Book in Volume the Last is never answered. The narrator first compares the living situation of the David family as “the most perfect Harmony”
and then indicates that David is the analogue to Job to foretell the coming misfortunes of his family (ibid).
However, what Job possesses after the trials from God is far from “perfect Harmony.” Sarah Fielding uses ironies in David Simple.
Because of the concealed patriarchal system, the family loses a good deal of money, and experiences numerous disillusionments shattering their ideal utopia. The break between the expected masculine achievement and the feminized gender role complicates the making real of the feminine utopia. Obviously, Fielding does not think much about the gender problems in her book, The Adventures of David Simple published in 1744. In spite of the human flaws, only positive qualities are presented among the characters; as a result, David ends up as a super- hero, announcing the excellence in friendship as well as the possibility of it. At the end of the novel published in 1744, he leads the family into “final” happiness by which the narrator concludes at the end,
Because of the concealed patriarchal system, the family loses a good deal of money, and experiences numerous disillusionments shattering their ideal utopia. The break between the expected masculine achievement and the feminized gender role complicates the making real of the feminine utopia. Obviously, Fielding does not think much about the gender problems in her book, The Adventures of David Simple published in 1744. In spite of the human flaws, only positive qualities are presented among the characters; as a result, David ends up as a super- hero, announcing the excellence in friendship as well as the possibility of it. At the end of the novel published in 1744, he leads the family into “final” happiness by which the narrator concludes at the end,