It is taken for granted that friendship functions as the most essential requirement in David’s lifelong adventure, however, David holds some misconception about the nature of a friend. In order to gather honest friends around him as soon as possible, David adopts the most convenient means— financial assistance— to visit people on his friendly list. Since money is an everyday necessity, especially for the poor people, it sounds reasonable for people to receive that as friendly assistance. The strategy, however, is problematic because it conflicts with the basic principles of friends proposed by most people.
Friends, whom we talk with and meet everyday, are the most frequent people to stay around us in everyday life. There are countless friends for each individual in one’s life;
likewise, one is also the friend of many other people around him. A common definition of friend is someone who you know and like, but certainly without family relationship. It is believed that friends should be honest and helpful to each other, regardless of social class and gender difference. That is to say, no physical or financial factor should be stated to
influence the nature of friendship. There is no absolute definition of friendship in the world because friendship is a human interaction that cannot be categorized by an enumeration of principles. Aristotle, in Nicomachean Ethics, generally lists five requirements for what
makes a friend.32 Aristotle believes that,
The friendly relations which we have with our neighbors and which serve to define the various kinds of friendship seem to be derived from our relations to ourselves.
We count as friends (1) a person who wishes for and does what is good or what appears to him to be good for his friend’s sake; or (2) a person who wishes for the existence and life of his friend for the friend’s sake … (3) a person who spends his time in our company and (4) whose desires are the same as ours, or (5) a person who share sorrow and joy with his friend. … By one or another of these sentiment s people also define friendship. (1166a 1-7)
Aristotle assumes that friendship is the mutual interaction between individual and others so that it is unimaginable to secure friendship from someone who hates you. But this is not saying that a selfish person who wants to fulfill personal demand will likely become a good friend and make others his good friends. The “self- love” used in Aristotle carries the message of respecting oneself rather than fulfilling one’s need. Aristotle believes that a friend is someone who is always thinking about his friends, speaking and doing for the sake of his frie nds, and loving himself at the very same moment. Only those who love
themselves and love people around them are friends to others.
There are various types of friendship distinguished in Nicomachean Ethics, including almost all the friendly relationships among ordinary people.33 Among these friends, Aristotle concludes that “to be friends men must have good will for one another, must each wish for the good of the other … and must each be aware of one another’s good will” (1156a 2-4). People with virtue and kindness are more likely to attract friends of the same quality to form a hospitable group. Friendship of goodness is considered the best, because it can
32 The book is also named as “Ethics” in other editions. The book, in general, converts ethics from a theoretical to a practical science, and also introduces psychology into Aristotle ’s study of human behavior.
33 In fact, Aristotle’s definition on friendship is much wider than our modern exp ression; the relationships between married couples or that between kings and people are all recognized as friendship in his explanation.
last for quite a long time with these benevolent people. On the contrary, friends that ask for usefulness and pleasure will dissolve their friendship as soon as the advantages disappear; by doing so, “they were friends not of one another but of what was profitable for them”
(Aristotle 1157a 13-16).34
Friends that gather for practical needs are not regarded respectable in Aristotelian classification, for friends would not treat each other sincerely. Besides, friends brought together by usefulness would not gather long; friendship terminates as soon as there is no more advantage.
David’s friendship with people is controversial when juxtaposed with the Aristotelian guidance to friendship. In Fielding’s novel, David typically demonstrates many of the positive requirements in an ideal friendship, including sharing the same dream, sorrow, and joy with them. He applies the principles to everyone around him, those acquaintances who merely know David are included, and even those who betrayed him— Daniel and Miss Nanny Johnson. It is very kind for David to do so, yet it will lead him to future problems that result from his over-generosity. The self- love demand of Aristotle corresponds to David’s
self-pride in discovering a bright prospect with “Generosity, Good- nature, and a Capacity for real Friendship, was to be found in the World” (41). He qualifies with the above
requirements for full self- love. David Simple is confident about human nature and enthusiastic about his coming friends. Besides, he is also virtuous enough to attract the attention of those who are virtuous, bringing himself the best type of friendship. All these points assert David and his friends as the most admirable in the world, who are supposed to keep their successful relationship as long as they want. It is a secure setting to plot such a benevolent protagonist with so many good qualities in a friendship-searching novel; however,
34 There are three basic species in Aristotle’s understanding on friends— friends for advantage, friends for pleasure, and friends for virtue. In my classification, I would boldly combine that of pleasure and advantage into the same category because characters in The Adventures of David Simple pursue the two satisfactions simultaneously when they were thirst for friendship.
Fielding ignores other requirements than their personality that counts in an ideal relationship.
Readers are puzzled about David’s attempt of turning strangers on the street into real friends in attempting to reach real friendship. In common understanding, scarcely anyone would go to the back alleys searching for friends by chance. Visiting the people there is too random a strategy because there are always numerous people waiting for philanthropic hand-out; in other words, what they desire is a helping hand rather than a “friendly” one.
That is a place where David seldom visits before he loses his brother; as a result, the visit only makes him a pretentious hypocrite donating money and time fo r the poor. The friendship is stained by his motivation at the very beginning.
Moreover, it is ironic that David does not set off for his search until he finally admits the malicious attitude of Daniel, his unfriendly brother. David provides Daniel with many chances to “remove [David’s] present Torment,” and merely an invitation to dinner together would recall David’s trust of his brother (16). However, Daniel determines to abandon the kinship as soon as he captures the whole inheritance. In other words, it is his brother’s leaving that induces David to look for friends. Friendship is always subsequent to family relations in David’s estimation, otherwise he would not have given his brother so many chances to regret. Pitifully, friendship cannot fulfill the need for relatives because the two relations are very different from each other. To carry out David’s need, the friendship is forced to be a family relation that is identical to what David enjoys before the death of his father.
David’s intention to substitute family for friendship remains an implicit motive for his actions. In the novel, David is presented as a philanthropist with limitless goodness so that he cannot be questioned. Because of his extraordinary personality, the characters in the novel respect him, and the readers admire him as well. Sarah Fielding never provides a clear explanation of David’s sudden plan for the adventure, suggesting to her readers that a searching for true friends is very reasonable for someone who pathetically loses confidence in
his family kinship. The narrator has put much emphasis on the “confidence” during David’s adventure and omits David’s need of “family.” Readers perceive from the narrative
description that what David needs to rebuild is the confidence in human relationship. But the truth is, what he wants most is a family. People all understand that the loss of a brother cannot be replaced by making new friends. Besides, David can go to visit his previous friends, instead of determining to meet someone new immediately. There is no clear description of his previous interaction with people. Either the situation of having no friend or disliking his previous friends is strange because it is impossible for man to be friends with nobody or somebody one dislikes, in particular for a virtuous protagonist.35 Moreover, long before David determines to travel to London for friends, he has the thought of concluding his traveling and calls an end to it when he holds lovely relationship with his first lover— Miss Nanny Johnson (28). That is only about three months later while he determines to find people who are “capable of being a real Friend ” (24). It is ironic to see a sudden alteration from finding a real friend to encountering a modest fiancée. The only possible guess is that the adventure is planned for a much specialized relationship, perhaps that between husband and wife. Readers certainly feel sorry for the poor David who is abandoned by his only brother, but would not sympathize with the canny David who plans to search for new friends and considers all of them as his new family members in advance. It seems that the
searching of friends is nothing but a deception attracting those innocent people to form a family with him. The reason why David dares not to claim it beforehand is that he is afraid of frightening these innocent people with such an abrupt request. As a result, he plots friendship as the first step and concludes the adventure with happy marriages that bring him various new family members, with some of them innocent, others reliable, and still others intelligent. Only with these people can David reconstruct an ideal family to replace the lost
35 None of David ’s previous friend is mentioned in the novel. Only is his original family briefly described in the early chapters of Book I.
one, for they are chosen carefully.
Accordingly, David is not going on an adventure of searching for real friends. On the contrary, what he plans for is a “tour” to replace his original family. That is not so much an adventure as a tour to return home.
Moreover, David misinterprets friendship as merely a gathering of identical people; that is certainly a mistake. Such a friendly utopian community is formed out of very similar people, which not only is a questionable principle in constructing a utopia but also in friendship. Friendship takes more than financial assistance, entire but foolish sharing, because wit and participation are also inevitable within a well-developed relationship.
Being true to each other is the first priority in making friends, rather than selecting people with the same characteristic.
From the points discussed, one of the indisputable problems in their friendship lies in the
“selection” of David. In the novel, David often promptly judges people by their appearance to identify them as true or untrue ones. When he meets Cynthia for the first time, he tells his companions that he is very curious about her story because of the “good-nature in her Countenance” that persuades him to believe the woman and thinks highly of her (91). This reminds again of the ugly and lazy wife of a satisfied husband, whom David describes meanly by stating that “this Woman was ugly, to such a degree, that it was a wonder any Man could think of her at all,” and during their dinner, the husband keeps on praising the
good-humor and virtue of his wife expressing his joy on “possessing such a Creature” (46;
emphasis original). David never hides his dislike for the ugly woman even after knowing her husband thinks of his wife as priceless jewel. Appearance is David’s first demand in selecting his community. Cynthia is definitely a virtuous and intelligent woman who may attract the attention of David, but there must be some human weakness in her; David and the narrator never mention the less admirable characters of her, and other chosen friends as well.
Praiseworthy characteristics of these friends are the only ones described. On the contrary,
the flaws of those who have been “crossed out” in the true- friend-contest are clearly displayed to readers. David would leave the imperfect friends immediately as his method
“whenever he found out any thing he thought despicable, in a Person he had esteemed, quietly to avoid them as much as possible for the future” (69). David leaves Mr. Orgueil because of his selfishness and pride (67), looks down on Mr. Spatter for his rudeness (89), and leaves Mr. Varnish for he always “talk[s] of nothing but [people’s] good qualities” (85).
There are always reasons for David to love someone and dislike others with his personal considerations. Those that have been crossed out may not be bad, but certainly they miss David’s needs on friends.36 Gary Gautier argues that “[e]ach time David seems to hit the deeper reality of a character, he sheers off into another character, ” and David is always insecure about the friendship with others until he meets people of his kind (203). The uncertainty results into his further searching only people like him, ignoring the weakness in them and himself.
The proverb, “birds of a feather flock together,” agreeably explains the connection between friends and self, elucidating the choices made by David. Instead of merely a representation of the similar liking between individuals, friendship is also a secret disclosure of an individual’s self- identity. So, it is said that a person can be judged by the company s/he keeps. In “Friendship and Self,” a sociological study by Dean Cocking and Jeanette Kennett, the writers analyze the nature of friendship and focus on the self in it with
statements to prove both the Mirror View and the Secret View, and then eventually assert opposed arguments to reject the two perspectives on friendship. In respect to research the psychology of friendship and self- identity, the essay includes various case studies and personal examples to prove its argument. The Mirror View here is unrelated to the Mirror Stage of La can, though both of the prospects are closely connected to the reflective
36 One may always justify for David ’s selection with the virtues his family possesses . However, the virtue becomes weakness in the end of his adventure. David chooses these people for all of them, includes David himself, have the same outstanding values, as well as the undesirable weakness.
self- identity. The Mirror View claims that friends find each other in the mirror because of the recognizable characteristics, and it is the recognition that makes friends love each other as
“a natural extension of self- love” (508). In light of this, people choose their friends-to-be with these friendly counterparts of one so that one can always easily perceive the admirable qualities of oneself from one’s friends. The Secret View shows the function of
self-disclosure of the “utmost” importance in friendship (515). Telling secrets is a way believed to fasten friendship; relationships are further formed during the process of disclosing one’s most interior secrets. The writers then question the argument with the example of psychologists: people trust them and are willing to tell them secrets even though they are never the best friends to patients. Moreover, the writers assert their opinions on stating that, first, “friends” are the mirrors that reflect what people want to see and what people detest seeing in themselves. The friends you love project your good points and make you feel good about yourself, while others make you sad and angry because they, as the mirror, clearly shows some weaknesses and ugliness without any pretension (513). Reflecting the plots in The Adventures of David Simple, these arguments give a reasonable explanation for the friendship of David and his beloved friends. By sharing their miserable past, the group of people gathers friendship that resembles self- love, the recognizable and acceptable self.
Only those that reflect brightly are accepted to join the relationship, so that explains why Mr.
Orgueil, Spatter, and Varnish are dismissed by David when their dark individualities are shown to remind David of his past. David enjoys innocence, tenderness, and benevolence that can be easily designated in his friends.
If we were to conclude that Mr. Orgueil, Mrs. Orgueil, and Mr. Ratcliff, only aim to demolish the fortune and happiness of the David family, it is truly too harsh a judgment. To tell the truth, the interlopers are not the only people who are beguiled by money and jealousy, for the people encouraged to indulge in the utopian happiness are gathered because of
financial assistance as well. Without the generosity and fortune of David, the homeless and
the poor would not have been gathered. Therefore, money plays an enormous role in the emergent juncture from miserable death to utopian happiness. Compared to the outsiders of the utopian community, David and his members make a much more reasonable use of their money. For the public, it is always more pleasing to encourage rich people to do charity than fulfill one’s own desire. Readers are pleased in perceiving plots of the rich helping the poor in novels. A drastic comparison is presented between the avarice in money for those outsiders and the emergency in that for these family members, and it purposely erases the fact that all of these people’s relationships are problematically constructed because of money.
The friendly assistance to Cynthia, Camilla, and Valentine causes suspicious
implications and disturbs the rightness in what David has done since it is scarcely possible to differentiate helping from buying, at least under such circumstances. Willing to help those in need of help, David becomes a generous friend who demands nothing in return. However, the ask- for-nothing generosity conflicts with what happens afterwards. It is true that David never asks for material rewards from these needy people, even a house is provided free of charge. What he provides is exactly what he wants from them, making a house into a home:
a family with honest members who love and take care of each other. If the argument that David needs a family so that he enthusiastically takes care of people invited into the family is correct, then David’s philanthropy has to be redefined. Purchase, the purposely action to
a family with honest members who love and take care of each other. If the argument that David needs a family so that he enthusiastically takes care of people invited into the family is correct, then David’s philanthropy has to be redefined. Purchase, the purposely action to