Eighteenth-century minds wanted to reach utopia too often by thinking backward to the ideal Golden Age. A good portion of eighteenth-century writers was not satisfied with their
11 Such a manipulation on citizens is very similar to that of Brave New World, in where an ecstatic drug called
“soma” is used to ease people when they were upset or feeling bad about life.
contemporary society and eager to explore someplace new and suitable in literature. In addition, English people in the eighteenth century, as opposed to those in the sixteenth, were already accustomed to the vision of overseas worlds and were experiencing a new social revolution, the industrial revolution. Even tho ugh some in the eighteenth century already sensed the crisis of the new age and admitted to oneself that they were far from utopia, the industrial revolution still would cause further problems in the nineteenth century. With the progress in technology in the following centuries, people reached a revised utopia in the industrial era with alacrity and convenience to replace their former spiritual one.
In general, a utopian community often takes place in a remote location hardly reachable from the world as we know it; people in Utopia seldom travel out of their paradise and
“aliens ” from the Utopia are not welcomed to visit the place, either. Being a no-place paradise, it is impossible to locate it at somewhere reachable. But that is not the situation in The Adventures of David Simple, for Fielding has described the perfect society within
England itself as her innovative Utopia.
A complete version of The Adventures of David Simple written by Sarah Fielding is composed of two books with its sequel published nine years after the first novel; though describing the very same family and their utopian living, the two books focus on very different perspectives and contrast each other with the paradoxical endings. In the first novel published in 1744, the male protagonist, David Simple, begins his adventure proclaiming that he would like “[to] travel through the whole World, rather than not meet with a real Friend ” (23). In his travel, David hears many stories and meets people of all sorts, excluding many unfit ones from being his friends. Finally, he meets three benevolent people— Cynthia, Camilla, and Valentine— and decides to gather them in a happy community.
The four noble friends join in kinship by marriage, David marries Camilla and Valentine marries Cynthia, and accordingly live happily. Sponsored by David ’s money, the group lives in happiness and satisfaction at the end of the first book. However, the little
community is induced to danger and misfortune in the sequel novel published in 1753, nine years subsequent to her previous publication. Running out of money, the family faces the first separation while Cynthia and Valentine are encouraged by Mrs. Orgueil to work abroad in Jamaica. Their leaving initiates a string of misfortunes in the utopian community; deaths and sickness break the happy family. At the very end of David Simple, only Cynthia and little Camilla survive among all the family members, and even David died of disease.
Fielding modernizes the utopian aspect of her novel compared to the utopian worlds of either Socrates or More. By addressing new societal concerns, the novel stands out among many other contemporary literary works and becomes a hit.12 Sarah Fielding plans a variety of utopian innovations in The Adventures of David Simple. First, the novelist places all her characters in or around London instead of at distant and unknown places. Second, Fielding purposely differentiates her utopian inhabitants from other utopian people by selecting only the suitable ones to comprise the utopian family, which is not a common utopian form for collecting its inhabitants. More commonly, utopian persuasion attempts to lure people
leaving the old life and go for the new system of social, economic, and familiar organization.
Furthermore, human relationships from both friends and families, are the first priority in the feminine utopia, while no early utopian literature has pointed out the importance of mutual interaction. Fielding includes the above innovations into her miniature utopian community to make it a new place with recognizable familiarity.
The plotting of familiar scenes enables readers to sympathize with the characters of David Simple, for they live like real people in a world they recognize ; and every reader knows that those walking by on the streets or living in the neighborhood could well be like David Simple. Fielding strategically depicts a commonly seen utopia in London, making
12 According to Linda Bree’s introduction to David Simple, the novel “was the hit of the season ” which was
“published at the beginning of May, and by July a second edition was required” (xi).
the novel realistic in background, yet unreachable in the human goodness.13 As Linda Bree indicates, the novel
achieves considerable additional significance from David’s attempt to pursue it in the contemporary world. In setting her novel in the London of her own time, Sarah Fielding overlays the quixotism of David ’s quest with a highly pointed satire on the manners and morals of the world about her. … the city’s inhabitants are clearly the kind of people whom the novel’s metropolitan readers could see around them everyday. (xxiv)
One of its attractive qualities of the novel is its domestic tone implying a common story that might happen on everyday life while David Simple receives great attention while first published in 1844. The readers identify themselves with the innocent characters, hoping they could live happily ever after with such admirable friendship. The utopia is not too far from the readers, so people feel possible that it can be realized.
Besides the innovative domestic quality, selection is another new device in Fielding’s utopian novel. David, who gathers these remarkable people into an extraordinary group, chooses all the initial family members carefully under thorny tests. Through the process, the contradictions between reality and benevolence become inevitable in such an unbalanced little society. David Simple, that most responsible protagonist, diligently walks street after street to select people of his taste— tender and benevolent— and dismisses all the other misfits.
The novel does not present an open utopia where people can come and visit at will. It only opens to the insiders. According to David, only those honest friends can join and become one of the members of it. By deleting the “unfriendly” people from his candidate list, he insists the house to become an exclusive shelter for people who behave like him. Such a discriminating utopia differs from traditional openness of utopia. In early utopian literature,
13 Compared to other utopian novels such as Utopia, Sarah Fielding’s setting in London is no doubt an original plan. It is certainly an identified place for its readers where people can reach in everyday life. This plot breaks the myth that utopia community can only take place in locations out of reach.
there was no specific guideline made on “collection, ” while “correction” is much emphasized by novelists during the process. In traditional utopian narrations, the new authority gathers the public first, whether by a king or a new government, then makes new rules for all of the citizens and enforces people to obey it without complaint. Correction of its citizens is an inevitable procedure in the making of utopia and the training of utopians. Nonetheless, David Simple adopts a new strategy: he “selects” members first, and then “collects” only the lucky ones to the miniature union without any discipline and restriction. Selecting suitable fellows enables the family to be a peaceful community without any regulation. The
members are the counterparts to David, so that correction of their previous ugliness is not important anymore. Both systems aim to constitute a utopia, yet Fielding chooses a rarely seen one in making up the good-place. To “select” instead of to “correct” prevents the David family from being a machine- like utopia like that of More’s Utopia and many dystopia novels; the advanced process of Sarah Fielding makes readers sympathize with all of the characters but neglect the unfair collection process. Since no family member has to change him or her after living with David, all of them just have to possess and keep their natural goodness and the community would genuinely become loveable and friendly. In light of this, outsiders can never join the utopian happiness even if they want to adjust into being the suitable ones; David and his utopia can never count them in. This element of David’s utopia makes it an unfriendly community that conflicts to its original principle on reaching true friendship. If such a friendly gathering must take the unfriendly strategy to complete, Sarah Fielding perhaps has lost her initial plan on the novel.
In the novel, human relationships— friendship and family kinship— are suggested to conquer all the disorder of the outside world. The belief is coherent with David’s lifelong searching for friends, a journey worthwhile for him that he is willing to give up all of his inherited money for it. Nevertheless, hardly any utopian novel puts emphasis on human relationships, in particular friendship. Ideal friendship is only slightly relevant to the
traditions of utopia. In an idealized utopian society, one would always be the best company for each other since all men are equal in every respect; there is no obvious distinction
between “benevolent” and “malicious” ones. Take Thomas More’s Utopia for instance, everyone is the same there; either because they want to be or because they are forced to be.
All of the citizens schedule their lives according to the very same timetable, attend the very same lectures, and enjoy the very same play after work; none of the utopians are encouraged to voice out of the others (More 41). Under such a utopian system, everyone will be equally benevolent, malicious, or emotionless; individuality that results from both goodness and badness are secretly trimmed from the people. Utopians do not have to pursue friendship since everyone is the same, and it is not so important to have friends of the same interest.
Whatever friends one has, the fixed schedule and life pattern are still going on in More’s Utopia. By contrast, those selected friends in David Simple trust each other whole-heartedly under all circumstances and construct their utopia with the opposite belief. For them, only sincere human relationship answers to the quest of utopia; therefore, both friendship and kinship are very important in the building of their utopia. The emotional sharing and caring of the David family have appealed to readers for centuries, because this ideal interaction is absent in human interaction. Living in the sophisticated world, people in the realistic world are gradually deprived of the nature to believe others as well as self; the human deficiency explains why was the innocently persistent novel to become such a great sale after published at mid-eighteenth century. Different from early utopian readings, Fielding’s utopian
searching envisions a two- fold imagination: the traditional wish of a good-place and the domestic expectation of an admirable relationship. The searching of friends touches people, though it is never adopted in other utopian writings, because that carries out the unspoken dream of various readers.
The above unprecedented characteristics from utopian traditions make David and his crew out-standing among other utopian protagonists who forsake their individuality in order
to construct an ideal city. Despite the above innovations, the collective household inherits some conventions from the traditional utopia: isolation from the outer world, simple and innocent people, and a satisfying economical status (at least in her first published novel.) Fielding’s novels would not be utopian without these traditions. Like other utopian communities, the David family lives in isolation, without much interaction with the outer world. Moreover, the family members keep their simplicity and the abundant property, as occurs in traditional utopian literary works. A two-part structure in utopian writing is necessary in order to represent the comparison between the common and depressing reality with the hopeful and trustworthy utopia. With these traditional elements, Fielding fastens her novel with the common understanding on utopia rather than merely portraying a recollection of family life.
In both Republic and Utopia, the good places are designed to be detached from the outer world; More’s Utopia locates as a disconnected island far from foreign countries and
transmission, and the singular utopian community desired by Socrates receives no news from foreign countries.14 Fielding, similarly, follows the tradition to plot a utopian community that keeps a slight connection to other people in society, with its family members always invited out for social gatherings, instead of actively inviting others into their little family.
Such is a wise plan on the location and its interaction with the outer world; though Fielding places the community within London, a nearby place to readers, but she purposely detaches the people from the outside characters. Because of their self- valued isolation and their passive contact with the outer world, the benevolent and weak family does not fit well in the materialistic society. The protagonist, David Simple, undoubtedly becomes a misfit who struggles between his own idea and the overwhelming capitalism, discovering that their beloved benevolence is easily frustrated because of the practical materialistic capitalism
14 There is a Chinese version on Utopia entitled Peach Blossom Spring, written by Tao Chien at 365 to 427 A .D, which is an old Chinese story illustrating an unreachable place that is also cut off from the world.
invading from the outside. As soon as he steps out of the door of his community, David is forced to face the unfriendly society; misfortunes creep in while the utopian members are unable to balance themselves between their golden creed and the down-to-earth reality. The only trustworthy guideline to the family members is to believe their golden virtues on each other, resembling the goodness and innocence. In the utopian descriptions of More and Socrates, their cities are isolated for fear of the worldly contamination. That is to say, the utopians detach from others to strengthen the utopian qualities. However, the solitary utopia devised by Fielding only makes it an obvious target to be attacked by the malicious
surveillance. Though detachment is a tradition in utopia, it eventually destroys the little family with the side effect, for the David family is ruined mainly because of their
inexperience to the world.
In addition, another tradition of utopian genre is the simple innocence of its people.
No sophisticated and selfish individual is welcomed to join the utopia. Sarah Fielding wisely combines in the name of her protagonist— David Simple— two easily understood meanings. The family name “Simple ” is a word with multiple explanations; positive meanings of it are honest, easy, and plain, while the negative is not intelligent, or even “a silly man” (Kelsall xiii). In order to illustrate the qualities of David Simple, his name brings multiple meanings and that is certainly intentional on the part of Fielding. It is difficult to define David with a single definition by the name “Simple.” On the other hand, the first name “David” brings the biblical idea of “beloved one ” and “friend.” Friendly and simple qualities elaborate the innocent but not-so- intelligent personality of this true friend. What he searches so devotedly can be read from his name; or, we can suspect that, in fact, what he searches for is himself. In many utopian literary works, to be simple- minded is one of the essential elements primarily because the intelligent public is too smart to fit into utopia.
Being superior, a normal wish for human beings, would definitely bring about the fall of utopia and ruin the peace of equality over there. Whatever is provided satisfies these
innocent and simple- minded people in utopia. Satisfaction is required in a utopian society, and that of David is no exception. Only those satisfied characters like David and his family members who were never interested in excelling people are suited to live in utopia. Without the easy-going qualities, readers can hardly envisage the utopian standard in these writings.
This tradition of plain innocence is the most successful tradition that Fielding develops in David Simple to portray the possibilities of the good-place.
In each utopian work, economy in stability is an invariable tradition. Little happiness and satisfaction exist in a community where material necessities are wanted urgently. To some extent, a utopia only takes place in circumstances of relative wealth. Sufficiency is emphasized in More’s Utopia by an efficient distribution of labor and fair sharing among the people; thus, it is not necessary to quarrel for anything in short supply. No protagonist in utopian literature has to worry about money because of the communist working and sharing among utopian members; on the contrary, a place with people in need could not be utopia.
Only stable economic circumstances enable a peaceful community. The utopia n goodness depicted in David Simple, especially in the earlier volumes, undoubtedly comes from the utopian tradition of good economy. Inheritor to a great fortune, David provides his family with abundant necessities in the first volume, so David’s family is fortunate to live free from worldly bother. Unlike other hard-working characters, David never works but lives without monetary trouble. His inherited fortune facilitates the process of searching and gathering friends; with the help of good fortune, he can walk and visit the back alleys to help those in need without worrying about the practical insufficiency. Besides, all the members of David’s utopia are free from tedious work, but stay at home to enjoy and celebrate their little family; not until the final volume do they realize the financial shortage and decide to leave the utopian community for work. Like Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, David and his friends have the privilege to use all the necessities provided without working. The
sufficiency in David Simple is coherent with that of utopianism; the only difference is that
none of the family members go to work for money. In Genesis, the ancient utopia
disappears as soon as Adam and Eve are forced to work for a living after been expelled from the Garden of Eden. The first published novel of David Simple following the tradition of sufficiency makes it a good instance for utopian illustration, but confusingly the sequence to it breaks the convention and induces an ambiguous effect. In Volume the Last, David and his friends go bankrupt and are forced to live in poverty, that is when the disillusions of the utopian imagination form to designate the collapse of this ideal family. Though it is indeed
disappears as soon as Adam and Eve are forced to work for a living after been expelled from the Garden of Eden. The first published novel of David Simple following the tradition of sufficiency makes it a good instance for utopian illustration, but confusingly the sequence to it breaks the convention and induces an ambiguous effect. In Volume the Last, David and his friends go bankrupt and are forced to live in poverty, that is when the disillusions of the utopian imagination form to designate the collapse of this ideal family. Though it is indeed