崇高美與渥滋華斯的美學：理論與詩歌

全文

(1)♁ 國立中山大學外國語文研究所碩士論文 A Thesis Submitted to The Graduate Institute of Foreign Languages and Literature National Sun Yat-sen University 真實與表象: 《大衛辛波歷險記》中的烏托幫理想幻滅 Revealing the Masquerade: Utopian Disillusion in The Adventures of David Simple. 研究生：林宛欣撰 By: Wan-hsin Lin 指導教授：田偉文 Advisor: Professor Rudolphus Teeuwen 中華民國 94 年 6 月 June, 2005.

(2) Acknowledgements. First of all, thanks to the constant assistance from my adviser— Professor Rudolphus Teeuwen— during the process of my research on this thesis. His persistent attention on revising my scheme on Utopianism as well as the disillusion of the novel improve my original research and also enrich its depth in academic values. The thesis would not come like this without his valuable suggestions.. Moreover, I would like to thank my family members: my parents, my sister, as well as my dog, for their backing and encouragement of my studies in NSYSU. Were not for their support, I cannot finish the thesis in such happiness. I also appreciate all my friends who care about me with their tender support during these years. Last but not least, it is my greatest pleasure to meet my precious friend, Polo, in this challenging year.. Hearty thanks to each of you who had participated in my researching career!.

(3) Abstract Providing a new perspective on The Adventures of David Simple and its sequel David Simple: Volume the Last, this thesis reveals the utopian disillusion that causes the collapse of the ideal community in Sarah Fielding’s novels. David Simple idealizes human relationships, but at a price of glossing the weakness in David and his family members that stains their ideal utopia. The problematic feminine utopia and the simulated intention of the utopian leader— David Simple— give rise to the ruin of this benevolent community. The thesis consists of five chapters. The first chapter attempts to interpret the novel by emphasizing what it glosses over rather than by celebrating the admirable virtues in the David family; such a skeptical frame of mind with respect to Sarah Fielding’s David Simple is rarely seen. Chapter Two connects Utopianism further with Sarah Fielding’s novels. Sarah Fielding adopts not only the traditions of the utopian genre but also innovates it in David Simple. Some features of it, however, develop utopian disillusions that can hardly be overcome. In the third chapter, we switch our focus to the feminine perspective, reading the novels as a feminine utopia. The ambiguities within their feminine utopia within the utopian community bring on its final failure. Chapter Four investigates the human relationships of the David family, exhibiting the unspoken intentions of the protagonist— David Simple. Both in The Adventures of David Simple and in Volume the Last, money is an essential instrument for plot movement; David wisely uses money to exchange it for friendship and a new-styled family. We are stunned to find that, what David searches for, however, is not true friendship. He attempts to reconstruct an ideal family by collecting friends. At the end of the novels, David successfully purchases a new family, but he disappoints the expectant readers who shared his adventure for more than nine years in searching for and believing in true friendship. The conclusion of this thesis indicates the need of a suspicious attitude in reading David Simple. Such an attitude does justice to the growing darkness in Fielding’s own vision, and deepens her achievement as a writer..

(4) 論文摘要本篇論文旨在提供讀者一個全新的視野來閱讀莎拉．費爾汀的小說《大衛新波歷險記》以及其續集《大衛新波: 最終卷》，以展現小說中烏托幫夢想的幻滅與理想家庭的衰敗。在本部小說中，除了明白點出的正面人際關系外，讀者常忽略了其它被刻意輕描淡寫的細節；然而，這些角色弱點卻是導致烏托幫美夢破滅的主要原因。其中，包括了大衛等人以女性美德建立的烏托幫中數項致命的盲點，以及領導人大衛在友誼的包裝下真正的意圖，這些原因都導致了這個美麗良善的社群敗亡的命運。本論文共分為五章。第一章概論綜括了論文中重要的論點，另外也清楚說明題目的內含意義與論文的研究方法。如同論文題目揭示，本篇論文意圖揭開「美德」與「良善」在為人津津樂道的面紗下從未被提出的黑暗面。此類的懷疑論在其它探討大衛新波的論述中，無疑是一股全新的思潮。第二章主旨為探討烏托邦主義，並深論《大衛新波》與其關聯性。在小說中，莎拉．費爾汀不只採用了烏托幫文學的傳統，另外也加進了許多她個人對理想社會的新概念，使得這本小說有別於以往我們所熟知的烏托幫文學。然而，小說中的一些新想法卻為未知的幻滅埋下了伏筆。第三章則是以女性主義的角度重新審視小說中的美麗新世界：雖然大衛及其家人擁有著人人稱羨的美德及快樂，但在這新家庭背後隱藏的卻是個重新粉墨登場的迷你型父權主義社會。在小說中，新的父權主義無法帶出它與外在世界的平衡，也因此引發了家中一連串的死亡與烏托邦社群的淪落。第四章把視角拉到了主角們人際關係的互動。首先，大衛總是先以金錢援助來認識所有的朋友，之後再交心分享私人的經歷；而隨著小說情節的發展，讀者會吃驚地發現，大衛所痴心追求的並不是他對外宣稱的益友，而是另一個理想的家庭。大衛成功地「買」到了許多和他一樣善良的朋友並順利的組成了家庭，但同時，他也令讀者們失望了；在二本小說相繼出版的九年期間，讀者們衷心期待看到的的其實是理想的友誼，而不是大衛的私人願望的遠成。在結論中，說明了以合理的懷疑論來重新解讀本小說的必要性。它不只合理地為莎拉、費爾丁解釋了小說中黑暗負面意象的由來，也再次強調作者在文壇中的成就。.

(5) Table of Contents. Abstract Chapter One. Introduction. 1. Chapter Two. The Adventures of David Simple and the Concept of Utopia. 9. Chapter Three. Feminine Utopia and the Coming Disillusion. 33. Chapter Four. The Psychology of Friendship and Family. 62. Chapter Five. Conclusion. 86. Works Cited. 91.

(6) Chapter One Introduction. My title, “Revealing the Masquerade: Utopian Disillusion in The Adventures of David Simple,” indicates that I regard Sarah Fielding’s novel as a text that should not be taken at face value.. True, there is no real masquerade party in the novel, but if we take the word. “Masquerade” in the sense of an attempt to deceive people about the true nature of one’s original identity, then there is a masquerade going on in the novel. David Simple portrays ideal human relationships as well as the coming together of good people to convince its readers of the actual possibility of such an ideal community. Nevertheless, the friendly gathering is a cloaked disillusion with friendship, tenderness, benevolence, and virtue, headed for an unexpected collapse. While the readers and the family members are satisfied with their life, the pouring misfortune comes all of a sudden. Since the community is a joyful masquerade, there will be time for the participants to take off their costumes and to remove their masks after the performance finishes. What the novel shows, then, is the real world of deficient virtue and cruel reality: a world that is not as much fun as a masquerade party.. The Adventures of David Simple: Volume the Last demonstrates. the depressing life after masquerade with economical pressure and physical illness to destroy the ideal household constructed by David Simple. In this thesis, I attempt to unveil the secret of the David family: on the one hand, the secret methods adopted for the virtuous festival will be disclosed; on the other hand, the reasons for the collapse will be analyzed. I am in a skeptical frame of mind with respect to Sarah Fielding’s David Simple and its sequel Volume the Last, and that is rarely seen in essays on these novels; interestingly, the reason for my suspicion lies in my original fascination with the novel. I was fascinated with the novel since the first time I read it so that I reread the novel for several times in order to understand more about it; however, it is through my reading of the novel that I perceive the.

(7) Lin. 2. ironies in it. The interactive relationships between these ideal friends and the outside world as well as their transformation from friends to families contain a variety of interesting messages, and most of them are spoken neither by the narrator nor by the characters. In brief, I endeavor to figure out the fallacy in their friendship. David ’s extraordinary benevolence and emotional gestures are compared with the theory of gender performance proclaimed by Judith Butler. He performs accordingly for the purpose of winning the hearts of surrounding characters, and the readers as well. Furthermore, it is also found that what David claims in his searching for true friends conflicts with the nature of friends in sociology studies. We are astonished to map out the actual demand of David, reforming a family of his own, has substituted his initial assert of searching for the true friendship. In this respect, David Simple is not only a “Moral Novel” telling the educational lessons, but also a novel in irony. It is a problematic utopia with fabulous imaginations that are forced to meet with the disillusion of the real world.. Even though characters die in dignity and hope for the utopian. community, the collapse of their beloved household discloses the disappointing real world. This thesis discusses the illusionary distress between utopia and reality, from ideal to cruel reality. The family with lovely friends, in its essence, composes varied admirable qualities, such as benevolence, tenderness, and generosity to form itself as a utopian little society.. These kindnesses enchant Sarah Fielding’s readers as if arriving the Never Land. where exists only in dreams. Her first full- length novel, David Simple, is a utopian novel of agreeable possibilities. The utopia is in jeopardy while its sequel— Volume the Last— published nine years later to carry on the story of the happy family; this time, the characters are placed in real life to deal with problems in money, illness, and worldliness. Perhaps Sarah Fielding never intends her two novels as binary opposites but her sequence indeed shows up the impossibility of living in a utopian community. The gray zone between utopia and dystopia leaves much fun for readers to set about their adventure on reading. Novelists like Sarah Fielding in eighteenth-century England held very different ideas.

(8) Lin. 3. about the possibility of utopia ; contrary to the twenty-first century indifference about utopia, the eighteenth-century people are still hopeful about the ideal country. Some of the contemporary readers of the age regarded utopia as a coming future that is practicable, while others made fun of the illusionary misconception. Novelists of eighteenth-century enjoyed the utopian subject in many ways: writers like Sarah Fielding demonstrated the charming place with positive qualities to remind people of the hope living in such a wonderful society; on the other hand, other mocking masters scornfully made fun of the utopia n imagination with jokes. 1 Nevertheless, dystopia and anti- utopia are also kind s of literature that integrated in the utopian genre.. Though the concept of utopia is suspicious to dystopian and. anti-utopian writers, it shows that people are still interested in the subject, either positively or relatively.. In other words, people of Fielding’s age, around the eighteenth century, were. enthusiastic about utopianism and thought the dream could eventually come true in the near future. With the modern perspective to retrieve the utopian belief in eighteenth-century literature, most of the readers would think of it as the mould ing from both tradition and imagination. Following the traditions of utopian genre, novelists of three centuries ago depicted a world not too far from the initial blueprint. For instance, the good-place is always free from the shortage of everyday supply and material struggle. These recognizable characteristics enable readers to identify themselves with those of ancient imagination, bridging ancient wisdom and eighteenth-century society. In order to be attractive, the novels cannot merely portray common circumstances of everyday life. Imaginative plots in exotic places are necessary. The innovation of placing its characters out of England into. 1. In Jonathan Swift’s Gulliver’s Travels, the protagonist accidentally visits many “wonderland” far away from England. But each of these countries includes some ridiculous customs that is purposely made to be laughed at. Readers are laughing at those inhabitants as well as oneself. In one of Swift ’s essays, “A Modest Proposal,” our narrator even sarcastically encourages people in Ireland to sell babies to be cuis ine for the rich in order to solve the social problem. In his opinion, sarcastically, only with such an economical trade would the poor in Ireland revive from poverty, and a better-place will then be constructed..

(9) Lin. 4. somewhere unknown amuses readers in Gulliver ’s traveling and the island of Crusoe, which startled the readers of eighteenth-century as the way modern readers were surprised with twenty-first-century scientific fictions. The enthusiasm for utopianism has faded out in recent decades.. After centuries of. striving, it finally has dawned on human kind that utopia is doomed to be unattainable.. The. utopian leading principles written by Thomas More are regarded as unpractical illusion that will certainly meet numerous problems in everyday practice of twenty- first century.. As a. result, the book now functions as one of the masterpieces with ancient wisdom, rather than a workable handbook to achieve a better world. Since artificial intelligence from the latest technology, constructing a good-place with computer and technology, can realize most of the imaginations from human beings, the old- fashioned Utopia is no longer expected.. Those. ancient books with protected goodness are far from modern need, and what provided does not meet with the necessity. Therefore, modern readers cannot sympathize with the eighteenth-century utopian imaginations; those ideas can be interesting and innovative, but never practical and useful. In her utopian novel of 1744, Sarah Fielding aims to depict a search for true friends: this is a Utopia about human relationships.. The searching of true friends and the pleasing family. building with sincere humanity is undoubtedly a utopian topic.. While Thomas More intends. to explore the economical utopia by the manipulation of countless rules to govern his people, Sarah Fielding determines to investigate the admirable human nature to enrich the utopian community. Her utopian plotting is a domestic one that belongs only to London with its indoor goodness and benevolence.. The house is a shelter for all her innocent characters,. preventing them from the outward malicious attack. The novel concludes all of a sudden at the climax of happiness and generosity, when characters set about their new adventure to family life with double marriages. Marrying their Mr. And Mrs. Right, the characters in David Simple solve their past misfortunes on account of the positive qualities of each other..

(10) Lin. 5. Ironically, Sarah Fielding publishes her sequel to force her married characters facing the reality of human world with everyday troubles. Displaced from their utopian castle to the real world residence, the characters feel uncomfortable and disturbed. If people were to categorize The Adventures of David Simple as a domestic representation of utopianism, then the later published David Simple: Volume the Last would be a communal statement of real life. Fielding includes multiple contrasts of the two novels in dealing with utopianism, gender issue, and humanity, etc. Her novel resembles a dramatic play, in which readers sense the vivid movement and deep emotion of each character and take the plots in sympathy with these benevolent characters. However, the spontaneous emotion often camouflages the obscuring comparison plotted by Fielding. If Sarah Fielding had been a common novelist who only demanded to sell her books with attractive plots, she would not have published her final volume to destroy all the fairy tales made up in her previous novel. Her novels bring mixed messages about utopianism: on the one hand, the utopia is built with amicable humanity; on the other hand, the ideal family is ruined by the imperfect human beings as well. Although this is definitely an adventure searching for values, either for a true friendship or for a self- identity, most of the characters are lost during their search; that is to say, they voyage through isolation to reliable relationship but depressingly become misfits segregated from the public. Displacement answers to the predicaments of the good people. Instead of the fairy-tale charm, the David family is put in the cruel reality that they cannot make real the enchantment in exchanging good behavior for happiness. Described in David Simple, only those who serve honorable principles in treating each other deserve a happy marriage life. People around David, including his family members, his parents, and the modest Dunster family, are worthy of their delightful lives for they possess the admirable qualities. In a moral lesson, it appears reasonable to encourage people to pursuit goodness by supporting them hopeful futures; however, Volume the Last drags these people from heaven to hell with a.

(11) Lin. 6. string of deaths. At the end, admirable behavior of these members is no longer a guarantee for happiness in the real world, but an indication of weakness and innocence. At the end of the final volume, readers found their admirable characters possessing virtue but not rewarded. Such an admirable family with unbelievably good qualities should be placed in fairy tales that would never be assaulted; otherwise the goodness cannot reach its glamour heaven. As suggested above, the focus of this thesis lies on the utopian disillusionment in The Adventures of David Simple and its sequel Volume the Last. In this thesis, there are three chapters of different perspectives in utopian demonstrations, relating to both the building and the devastation of their utopia. In Chapter II, there is a concise introduction to utopianism and its connection to The Adventures of David Simple, presented as the commencement to examine the novel as a reading in eighteenth-century utopia. Traditional utopian masterpieces, such as Republic and Utopia, familiarize readers on the primitive dream of equality and happiness and deliver valid traditions on the genre, including isolation, economic sufficiency, and the drastic differences between the utopia and the reality. Apart from these traditions, the chapter embarks on stating the innovative attributes in David Simple. Most important of all, the small family is constructed through selection, a procedure that was never adopted before in early utopian communities. It is more like a secret garden unreservedly not opening to public, which only embraces people who David admires. Such a closed Utopia would face problems in its communication with the outer world, and subsequently leads its members to encounter the delusion of a better place. Unlike the traditional Utopia holding masculinity, the friendly community of David Simple is a feminine one that thinks of feminine qualities as utopian evidence; all the family members enjoy their tenderness and benevolence in interactions to build the new utopia. The feminized utopia and its nature are explained in Chapter III, and I present evidence to prove its disillusion. The estimated values of their feminine community give rise to the.

(12) Lin. 7. extraordinary utopian leader— David— in possessing not only the feminine but also the masculine qualities, in particular the weakness. In a word, patriarchal inequality exists in the family since the women are responsible for full-time housework while males wander freely at home. The family presents its femininity and equality in outward interactions, but maintain the traditional masculine superiority within the household. The feminine gestures, including tears, signs, and sentiments, are performances that build one’s gender; the attempt is coherent to Judith Butler’s theory on gender performance. Besides, feminine deficiencies also disturb the family; many female characters in the novel despise what David and his members have and determine to shatter their happiness. The feminine goodness makes up the happiness, while the badness traps these innocent into misfortunes. Females, interestingly, construct the ideal household and destroy it with little effort. Lacking the masculine power to govern itself, the utopian community keeps only the useless masculine superiority in directing females. The impotent family fails even in protecting itself, thus the final ruin is expected. The fourth chapter of my thesis investigates the human relationship of the David family. The exquisite relationship turns out to be a scheme of David’s in regaining his ideal family. True friends are the only topic in the initial phase of his searching: the selfless purpose inspires the characters in the novel as well as the readers. Nevertheless, the actual want does not come out at the end of the second volume, in which all these lovely friends are made to be family fellows living with David. The wealthy gentleman “buys ” friendship with friendly assistance and patience in listening to their stories, making efforts not to embarrass these gentle people living in poverty. Our philanthropist is not as innocent as he seems ; he is smart in overcoming disturbances to his target— rebuilding a happy family.. Therefore,. the whole plot of friend searching becomes ironic when seen in the sight of the end of the novel. First, there is no true friend anymore because all of the m, to be precise, have turned into family members; second, the virtuous people do not receive their award as in other.

(13) Lin. novels of moral lesson.. David successfully purchases a new family, yet he lets go the. readers’expectation on constructing a friendly community that is originally declared as the title. During the procedures of examining the utopian disillusion of Sarah Fielding’s novels, serious and scholarly attitude is required when doing and reading this research; moreover, it is also enthusiastically encouraged to bring one ’s omitted innocence and inborn benevolence in order to be sympathetic with David Simple and his family members. The attitude is similar to what the narrator claims after the death of Little David’s death, “Words cannot reach it— the sympathizing Heart must imagine it— and the Heart that has no Sympathy, is not capable of receiving it” (384). Only with considerable understanding to their tender intention will researchers successfully reveal the untold secret of this utopian masquerade.. 8.

(14) Lin. 9. Chapter Two The Adventures of David Simple and the Concept of Utopia. “O brave new world,” he repeated. “O brave new world that has such people in it. Let’s start at once. “You have a most peculiar way of talking sometimes,” said Bernard, staring at the young man in perplexed astonishment. “And, anyhow, hadn’t you better wait till you actually see the new world?” (Huxley 115) 2 Sarah Fielding, in her novel The Adventures of David Simple, depicts the establishment of a feminine “good place,” and thus shows herself influenced by utopian longing and strains. Utopian literature can be traced back to the years long before Thomas More illustrated the imaginary good place and baptized it as “Utopia” in 1516, when Plato has already announced the general concept of utopia in his Republic twenty centuries previously. No utopian writers or dreamers, including these two pioneers, actually feels certain about their ideal place; for many of them, it is better to rest in dreams rather than to wake in reality.. I. The Utopian Tradition The keyword “utopia,” first coined by Thomas More, shows that the word is made up of several Greek words— ou / eu and topos. Consciously, More adopts the adjective “eu” that is pronounced very similarly to “ou” to imply the paradox of it; on the one hand, “utopia” stands for good-place in its literal meaning, on the other hand, it suggests that the good-place would forever remain a no-place as the Never Land in children’s literature. 3 Applied to both 2. This is quoted from Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World, a dialogue between John and Bernard before the plot begin to unveil the new world. The novel is a typical anti-utopian novel published in the 1930s. 3 In addition to the adult fairy tale in either Utopia or The Adventures of David Simple, the twentieth century children’s literature writer, James Matthew Barrie, also created an adorable place called “Never Land” in his noted tale— Peter Pan. Children love Never Land so much that it becomes the ideal paradise, but only Peter Pan is able to stay there and remain in childhood forever. The term “Never Land” connotes the absence of a good-place simultaneously: a place never reachable is the best place..

(15) Lin. 10. “good-place” and “no-place,” the paradoxical naming in “utopia” foretells the predicament for mankind in materializing their plans for it: utopia is certainly now here, and may also be nowhere. It is a concept that always exists in the deepest desire of human beings, so the dream of utopianism is always “here” waiting to be realized; whereas every dreamer understands its impossibility, so utopian imaginations can only be nowhere to be real. Before the writers decide to portray their good place, they already know the impossibility of making it real. The value of utopia “lives not in its relation to present practice but in its relation to a possible future;” utopia might take place in the world to come, but definitely not in the present circumstances (Kumar 3). Since people have no hope of completing utopia during their life times, it comforts them to read the proposal in books; no reader would seriously care whether the plan could be carried out or not except some of the Marxist idealists. A good-place perfectly equates a no-place in such a hopeless situation. 4 Detesting the everyday life as it is composed of greed and ugliness, readers rest in the descriptive better place as a homecoming from the ancient Golden Age. It comforts people to read the good-place page by page, imagining living in such a good place. Ironically, the two contrary connotations of “utopia” stand for the same place; a no-place may not necessary be a good-place, yet a really good-place is doomed to become a no-place in the real world. By and large, people agree in defining the term “utopia” as a better place, and numerous people adopt it in speech and writing without further query. However, there are problems with the exact definition of “utopia.” It is often said to be a perfect world where sadness vanishes and happy fragrance permeates everywhere, a place providing pure peace and quality with people live peacefully and equally. But never a precise definition is given on the term. J.C Davis begins his utopian exploration with “[t]his book must begin with a paradox. … The paradox was clear: in order to study what utopias are, it is necessary to know 4. In Krishan Kumar’s understanding of Utopia, the practical use of utopian values is to drive people forward realizing it, or at least unveil it, so that “the very visionary and ‘impracticable’ quality of utopia is its strength” (ibid.). So to speak, it is a nice device to put utopia into a no-where position: a good-place in a no-place..

(16) Lin. 11. what they are” (12). For these experts of utopia, no definite explanation on the wonderland is given, and could be given; this certainly raises substantial problems in utopian studies. To put it more specifically, how can people imagine and propose a utopia if no one knows what exactly it is and what exactly it would lead to? The building and the defining of utopia are only tenuously linked; thus, preparing for a better future is the only clue and ambition within the assumption of utopia. No doubt, utopia in general leads the society to “[visualize] social perfection” to see the possible future if only people determine to change the present (Davis 370). The term utopia generally brings to mind positive qualities such as satisfaction, equality, and peace. These characteristics, resembling the ancient virtues of the Golden age and the Garden of Eden, have long been desired by mankind. These deficiencies in human nature contribute to the present imperfect world of moral corruption. The proposing and criticizing of utopian ideas, unavoidably, catch the attention of people across continents and centuries. In their pipe-dreams for utopia, numerous authors and idealists work on depicting utopia with either a self-confident blueprint or an ironic satire. According to George Claeys, the utopian literary genre has been adopted as means of proposing superior societies and critiquing existing inadequacies, suggesting hope and despair (viii). The argument explains why writings of different focus, including Utopia by More, “Idea of a Perfect Commonwealth” by David Hume, and even Gulliver’s Travels by Jonathan Swift and The Adventure of Robinson Crusoe by Daniel Defoe, are included altogether in the genre. 5 Ideal depictions from More and Hume are concerned with the “good pattern of life in an historical cosmos, ” while Swift’s and Defoe’s words, belonging to a sub- genre, in turn catch the satirical elements to meet with the conceptual good-place (Olson 143). To most modern readers, there is no true difference between criticizing and 5. Whether The Adventures of Robinson Crusoe and Gulliver’s Travels are utopian literature or not is still left in dispute. Christine Rees categories the two novels as utopian genre in her Utopian Imagination and Eighteenth-century Fiction, while other scholars regard the novels not belonging to the utopian genre..

(17) Lin. 12. proposing in utopian literature. Both patterns ambiguously lead to the good features in utopia as well as the possible predicaments over there. A distinction should be made between utopia as a concept and utopia as a literary genre. While conceptual utopianists propose an attractive future, what one writes may be identified as utopian literature. Gary Saul Morson defines utopian literature as characterized by three criteria: A work is a literary utopia if and only if it satisfies each of the following criteria: (1) it was written (or presumed to have been written) in the tradition of previous utopian literary works; (2) it depicts (or is taken to depict) an ideal society; and (3) regarded as a whole, it advocates (or is taken to advocate) the realization of that society. (74) According to Morson, utopian literary works have to keep the tradition of its genre; more importantly, they should be progressive and positive in order to “advocate” the coming of utopia. But the problem is that, since there is no definite explanation of “utopia,” neither is there an exact one for utopian literature (or utopian novel.) What Morson suggests could be the general assumption of utopian novels, but surely not the definite guidelines. For example, it is controversial whether Thomas More “advocates” the realization of his utopia, because many have argued about the ambiguous overtones in the final skeptical paragraph of Utopia.6. If Utopia does not fit not into the third criterion of Morson, to advocate or take to. advocate the realization, then it would become problematic because few can trace back the utopian concept without considering Utopia as a founding text of utopian literature. The exact definition of utopian literature has remained unclear over centuries, especially when dystopian and anti- utopian literature joined to obscure the genre. Therefore, critics hold. 6. In her concise introduction to Utopia, Susan Bruce indicates the paradox and contradiction of More’s book, calling it a juxtaposition of many different qualities (xix). To some extent, a hopeful perspective on the building of Utopia is broken at the end of his Utopia. See her introduction to Three Early Modern Utopias: Utopia, New Atlantis, The Isle of Pines (Oxford: Oxford UP, 1999) pp xviii-xxii..

(18) Lin. 13. very different opinions on categorizing novels as utopian, anti- utopian, dystopian, or none of these. Most of the utopian literary works have to be “either entirely or mostly fictional” but not wholly fictional (Morson 76). Apart from fairy tales and history, utopian writers locate the genre between ideal and reality, longing for perfection in such a flawed world. Under such conditions, it may not be easy to convince common readers of such a chimerical society. As a result, a trustworthy “delineator” in utopian writing is responsible to further explain all the details in plain language. The characters in utopias make the fiction dramatic, whereas the “delineator” makes it acceptable and explains the good-place to readers who are not familiar with the system (Morson 75, 76). Utopian literature needs a “delineator” in addition to characters because it is a very educational genre, in which all that is new in a society needs explanation and historical context, thus a successful and reliable delineator is needed in utopian literary works for s/he can lead readers to a new perspective which is different from the characters. 7 This element makes the genre very different from others; readers accept the fictional arguments in utopian writing without harsh complaint, but they may not accept it in genres of politics, culture, and even history. Moreover, in Morson’s observation, utopian writers tend to claim the genre itself as a “radically different kind of genre standing outside that hierarchy” (Morson 88; emphasis in original). Such a distinct genre indeed deserves a reasonable delineator to express its nature. In conclusion, utopian writing plans imaginary traveling with a trusty narrator and descriptions of non-existing communities, encouraging readers everywhere to join the journey in daydreaming. Written in the fifth century B.C., Plato’s Republic is broadly accepted as the pioneering utopian literary work in dialogic form spoken by Socrates and many other wise thinkers, as well as their disciples.. 7. Their conversations begin with justice and then cover broadly all. A delineator is different from common narrators, s/he is more precisely confident in the process, and only indicates a very different viewpoint reflected from the characters..

(19) Lin. 14. issues of society. Though the book is meant to be a conversational collection, speakers are hardly ever of equal rhetoric power. Instead, the wise man— Socrates— leads all the discussions and develops the assertions that convince all his dialogists.. Consequentially, in. reading Republic, it is not necessary to read it as an open discussion for the collection is more like a private speech rather than the combination of various individual assertions. 8 In the dialogues, the central argument is to introduce and induce a philosopher ’s city where there is not only peace but also equality. No definite mention about building “utopia” is made during the talking; what the participants, especially Socrates, propose is a happy and just city free from war. Justice, according to them, would be the principal guideline for an ideal city. Socrates proposed that each citizen must have a job “he’s naturally fit for, ” by doing it diligently and then “the whole city will become one and not many, and the whole city will naturally grow to be one rather than many” (Plato 90). Most of Socrates’assertions are practical arguments rather than hypothetical ones, encouraging people to work hard and demand less for constructing a united city without poverty. Only with work would the citizens be responsible and delightful with their sufficiency. Unlike other utopianists, Socrates demands not a new authority for the better place; instead, he calls for one united city as a peaceful one. Since there is only one city, no war between the weak and powerful, or poor and rich, cities will be raised to annoy the citizens. For people then, a peaceful city would be the most desired one. In the assumption of having a good city, Socrates initially claimed the communist concept: They [citizens]’ll own no private property beyond the bare necessities. No one will have a house or a treasury that isn’t open to all. … They’ll share a common life and eat at a common mess as though they were in camp. They must be told that with divine gold and silver from the gods always in their souls they have no need of 8. The superiority in dialogic literature has long been a problem, because most of the dialogues contain a wise man and several other common speakers, and it will eventually end with the wise man convince all the other people, including the readers..

(20) Lin. 15. the human kind … If they ever possess private land and houses and money, they’ll become farmers and stead of allies to the citizens… (86) The arguments resemble the later Utopia of Thomas More as well as the communist union of the early twentieth century. In order to achieve the common life with no private possession, communist sharing is taken as the solution for these chaotic cities. 9 Countless utopian novelists and socialists propose communist societies, with people sharing everything and forsaking private possessions, but none have succeeded in practice. Socrates does not push aggressively on practically constructing such a place but only proposes that by doing so, the citizens would be happier. Socrates’ proposal is far removed from actual attempts for realization; like many other utopian writing, the concept is supposed to be carried out in the unreachable future. Generally speaking, Republic is the leading utopian source for the coming utopian novels, even though not all the discussions Plato recorded mention the “just city. ” Socrates indicated various brilliant ideas for a better city in dialogues, which become golden principles in the genre. Plato may be the “progenitor of the genre,” but Utopia is the first written text that mainly and openly portrays a concrete utopian concept, and it has been recognized as a realistic paradigm of utopian thinking (Oslon 152). Thomas More, personally as an ambassador sailing abroad, must have been deeply influenced by the notion of materialism of his age, and cultivate early modern capitalism in his realistic blueprint to utopia. From the Middle Ages until the Renaissance, England had been a primitive agrarian community with a communal style of living that followed an established, age-old pattern. By the sixteenth century, that pattern was to be overtaken by a newer, commercial one. These old days are what Thomas More desires to return to in his book. The fifteenth and. 9. Sharing is the essential requirement in utopian genre, and its sub-genres. Modern anti-utopian novels such as1984 and The Brave New World conclude the element in order to facilitate the utopian building. With the strategy of sharing, successful utopia may not be built eventually, but a stable economic system is undoubtedly constructed..

(21) Lin. 16. sixteenth centuries in England show a sharp contrast between the old farming pattern and the new business pattern (White ix). Social progression diverged drastically from the preceding pattern, ushering English people to confront an economical crisis on a scale never seen before. Business and travel flourished, expanding individual perspective into a more international outlook. One after one, European kingdoms attempted to explore the new American continent for rich mineral resources. Whereas in the Christian Middle Ages, the emphasis was on morality and on preparation for the afterlife, and in the Renaissance, a life of fortune and success in the present world become more of a focus.. Compared to Plato’s Republic,. Utopia mirrors the switch of focus toward a more worldly life. The main concern with Utopia is not ethics, but practical improvement. In the ideal society, pleasure parallels labor for that is the only way to maintain the social balance in utopia. As the social situation in More’s age tells, utopia cannot exist if the country is poor and in need of necessities, so material wealth must be developed.. Unlike the metaphysical discussion about a good-place. in Plato and other philosophers, Thomas More focuses his creed on everyday life, including money, marriage, war, and even criminal punishment to meet with the moral progress and practical advance. The division of Utopia makes it a novel of paradox. It has been divided into two very opposite parts: the first book generally depicts the contemporary social troubles in England of More’s time, while the second focuses on the incredible adventure of Hythloday in Utopia. The pathetic descriptions of economic problems in England contrast with that of the happy life in the satisfying Utopia. On the one hand, the radical portrayal in the first book elucidates the incredible goodness in the overseas country visited by Hythloday. Readers come to realize their insufficiency in life after being told about the good-place and the good behavior of the citizens in Utopia, which is perhaps too good to be true. On the other hand, Thomas More manipulates the descriptive novel with the two opposite books to make the utopian concept unbelievable. Readers would think Book II unattainable compared with the.

(22) Lin. 17. practical necessities and unfriendly human nature of common life in Book I. In light of this, the drastic comparison between the two parts further illuminates the impossibility of building and living in a utopian society; while the non-sense story teller is a day-dreamer, Hythloday, and the whole plan on utopia— a good-place— is nothing more than a childish wish. Intentionally, More schemes for conscious detachment between readers and the book as the distance between reality and utopia. Though Utopia is a carefully designed city that satisfies all human needs, More does not want his readers to believe it. Not only does More refuse to feel confident about the good-place, but he also wants all the readers to regard it as a dream vision that will not come true. It is a sensible joke to name the only traveler who has been to Utopia “Hythloday, ” a nonsense peddler. Most of the utopian descriptions in Book II come from Hythloday, who specifically explains the life patterns and regulations in the realm of Utopus to other characters and answers all the questions about that good place. However, what Hythloday asserts cannot convince his friends, let alone the readers. For one thing, those descriptions are too perfect to be real; for another, he is designed to be a nonsense speaker in the novel because of his name. Since the utopia is remembered and told from an over-enthusiastic narrator, it is hard to make readers take his claim seriously. During the depiction of his utopia, More intends to “distant himself from Utopia ” (Fox 59). The overtones in the lines of Utopia indicate the writer ’s contradictory messages— those written down do not equal to what one believes. More, so to speak, is not always a supporter and disciple of the concept mentioned in Utopia. The untold perception rather than the words on the paper catches the eyes of readers. The protagonist in Book I, “More,” expresses his utopian argument at the end of book II, Meanwhile, though [Hythloday] is a man of unquestioned learning, and highly experienced in the way of the world, I cannot agree with everything he said. Yet I confess there are many things in the Commonwealth of Utopia which I wish our own country would imitate— though I don’t really expect it will. (More 91;.

(23) Lin. 18. emphasis mine) From the translated episode, the play in using “wish” and “expect” evidently demonstrates the author’s teasing of Utopia by reiterating the ambiguous naming on outopia and eutopia 10 ; after dialogues of quest and answer, even the described Utopia designed by Thomas More could not convince the fictional “More” at the very end of the novel. To our protagonist “More,” Utopia is a place which rests in the imagination rather than the real world; more than to its uncertainty, he depressingly objects to the possibility of it. Moreover, the framing in Utopia blurs its reader ’s reality. First, featuring actual and well-known people of the sixteenth century, like Peter Giles, John Clement, and Erasmus, this book blurs the divergence between reading and living, as well as the border between realistic document and fantastic imagination. Recognizing the celebrities in Utopia, readers of the early sixteenth century made a juxtaposition of real life and fictional plot: those speakers indeed were there, but it is untrue that they had gathered and talked about the ideal utopia like that. Naive readers following the story of Utopia would find themselves introduced to the cruel reality of England in Book I, then brought to know the utopian society, and finally forced to break the hypothesis of Book II with all the talking characters. In fact, Utopia does not encourage readers to respond freely to utopia, because More and his writing prejudice the readers against Hythloday’s Utopia. The dramatic skip from everyday life to an unseen place in between Book I to Book II recaptures reader ’s attention in regarding it as an imaginary, at least not a realistic, piece of literature. Prudently, More makes his book into not only a utopian piece but also an anti-utopian one without taking a particular side. On the assumption of giving a “good-place,” More jests with its government with unfair and useless solutions for social problems; in fact, he intends to tease the idea of utopia louder 10. “Wish” and “expect” is the play of words translated in the Norton edition; as for the Oxford edition, “wish” and “hope” is adopted. The final sentence is translated into, “so must I needs confess and grant that many things be in the Utopian weal-public which in our cities I may rather wish for than hoped after” in the Oxford edition edited by Susan Bruce (123). The original sentence in Latin is “ita facile contiteor permulta sees in Utopiensium republica quae in nostris civitatibus optarim verius quam sperarim.”.

(24) Lin. 19. with his book. The result is a very crude and bitter sort of satiric irony that has not yet been seen in the work, and its very presence suggests that More was lashing out the failure of his “ideal” model to deliver all he had fancifully accepted from it. Put it another way, instead of being the instruments of satire, the Utopians had now become the object of satire. (Fox 64) As Fox claims, the final judgment from “More” persuades readers to perceive the novel as an ironic utopian concept in conflict with itself, rather than being a method of teasing the real world. We may find Utopia original and interesting, but we will not take it as political guideline to practice in life; various settings of the book convey the message that utopia could never work here and now. By doing that, Thomas More not only distances himself from Utopia but also from Europe. Without obvious notification, the book criticizes not only people within the book, but also those who are reading the book. Thus, it is utopian skeptics that are seriously questioned about fitting into the ideal society. Furthermore, the form of Utopia— a dialogical fiction— is a vehicle for both proposing something and criticizing it. The book collects proposal, questioning, and argument from the characters, but no agreement made at the end. The fictional dialogue arouses another critical detachment from reader to writer. With respect to the dialogical form in English writing from Plato to Hume, it has long been suspected that dialogues easily become like monologue, which “contains a closed, determinate meaning endorsed by the author himself” (Fox 92). With the endorsed dialogue, it is a close-ended portrayal of conversation instead of a progressive one. As a result, the multiple dialogues in Utopia become problematic in further study, and the pattern makes it even ha rder to take it as a serious doctrine. As a controversial issue, Utopia is considered as the “source of inspiration for social reformers” (Fox 11), and a place always “subject to some form of regulation” (Davis 52); while others think that the essence of Utopia is “to live in a world that cannot be but where.

(25) Lin. 20. one fervently wishes to be,” in a word, a no-place indeed (Kumer 1). The very distinction between inspiration and regulation hardly meet each other. These contrasting arguments demonstrate opposite readings to this very same book over the centuries. As a matter of fact, none of these readings disobeys More’s intention. Utopia, no doubt, is a place of ambiguity and ironies. To read the fiction carefully, in which imagination is plotted realistically, readers may find that the situations in More’s Utopia conflict with the common understanding of “utopia.” Even though seizing pleasure is the first priority in utopian doctrines, happiness and laughter among people is hardly found in any of the lines; only Spartan-like regulations portrayed within each section. Actually, the announced pleasure, as Surtz observes in “The Link Between Pleasure and Communism in Utopia,” comes from nothing further than basic commodities, such as food, drink, clothing, land and work as the “matter of pleasure” in Utopia (Surtz 90). In other words, people in Utopia are taught to love what is given but not desire for what they do not have. Inhabitants under such authority live without freedom and individuality, for everyone has to behave and react exactly as the institution demands. This is a country lacking in creativity and individuality. But these social policies can hardly be practical in everyday life, given the peculiarities of human nature. Iam not arguing that all regulations in utopia are so inhuman that none can be practical; indeed many of them are improvements over More’s contemporary society, such as the renewed punishment and the city planning.. The detailed rules modify people’s living, turning the place into a morally. and politically pleasing country. Nevertheless, many other restrictions drive the utopians cruelly without mercy; the rules enable a fully developed country but forbid a creative and active living. In addition, the overwhelming utopian system encourages its people to become voiceless machines without thinking and speaking, directing the country into a silent.

(26) Lin. 21. place. 11 Those machine- like citizens who never enjoyed the mercy of free sound, voice, music, and speech are educated to appreciate silence only, for that is how their Utopia is made of. Because of human nature’s imperfection, it is not easy to strike an ideal balance between individual benefit and society equality. In order to shape a better world, it takes moral learning to bring people to know more and desire less, as well as an economic policy that helps people to do less and enjoy more.. Enjoyable opulence pleases one’s worldly nature. better than spiritual demand, so an abundant life does not equal a fulfilled life. Therefore, ideally, a utopian society should progress twofold: morally and economically. Only if both necessities are satisfied can a superior human species replace a flawed one. Working, in turn, turns out to be the inevitable means in constructing utopia; this explains why idleness is strictly forbidden in Utopia.. Someone who does not “[work] hard at his trade” and sits in. idleness would be driven out of utopia (More 40). Such an industrious plan contributes to a flourishing country that is always free from financial distress, while inhabitants are free to enjoy relaxed style of living. Republic and Utopia are not the only instances of utopian literature of earlier times for countless writers strove to innovate their ideal place with various strategies and descriptions; the two novels written by Plato and More are generally regarded as the ones pioneering utopian concepts for one commences the idea on a better city and the other one creates the term— Utopia.. II. Utopian Innovations and Traditions in The Adventures of David Simple 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..

(27) Lin. 22. 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.

(28) Lin. 23. 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)..

(29) Lin. the novel realistic in background, yet unreachable in the human goodness. 13. 24. 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..

(30) Lin. 25. 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.

(31) Lin. 26. 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 twofold 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.

(32) Lin. 27. 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..

(33) Lin. 28. 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.

(34) Lin. 29. 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.

(35) Lin. 30. 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 a family with love and care for each other, it is no longer utopian with this violation of generic tradition. One can always assert that the David family lives in spiritual happiness, considering that also a form of utopia, regardless of the sickness and deaths resulting from their poverty. Interestingly, the following misfortune is forecasted by the proverb assigned in the preface of the final volume, “[t]he Attainment of our Wishes is but too often the Beginning of our Sorrows” (285). In light if this, money enables the gathering of the little family, and it correspondingly creates the illusion of utopia.. Money is indeed a very. interesting quest in the novel; the influence on the characters as well as the plots, and it may be very possible to take another full- length thesis to disclosure the interaction of money with The Adventures of David Simple. If David Simple had been a novel of prudent financial mana gement, then a conditional balance between sharing and laboring, and a strong and defensive protection against outside malice, could have turned it into a utopia. Without these disillusionments of utopia, David Simple would have left its readers in suspense about whether it is a utopian or anti-utopian novel. To readers’surprise, Sarah Fielding gives her novel an ambiguous ending: the sudden death of David as well as the survival of Cynthia and little Camilla concludes the novel. Readers are not informed whether the plan of David, to search for real friends and to live with them, is concluded with success or failure. No distinctive agreement is reached on whether.

(36) Lin. 31. David Simple functions as utopian or anti-utopian novel; likewise, no reason for the fa ll of the house is given by the novelist to determine whether the deaths of characters should be seen as a fall or a lift. Most readers and scholars think of the plot as paradoxical in regard to the contradictory styles of the two novels. To my mind, the most ambiguous point of the novel lies in that a pleasing utopia as well the virtues are practicable in the early volumes but the ideal ruins at the final volume. In his critical paper analyzing the sensibility of David Simple, Gerard A. Barker indicates that David ’s praise-worthy spontaneous benevolence and sensitivity, at the same time, also makes him “remarkable innocent and hence ill-equipped to cope with a cynically callous world ” (69). The dual vision of his goodness troubles the readers; pitifully, David can only solve the predicament by a dignified death. There comes another ambiguity from the plan of the novelist: double interpretations on David ’s death obscure the motif of his friend searching because of the very final narration of David on his deathbed, Cynthia, who has stood the Death of Valentine, will easily find Comfort from [David’s] Death, and will teach [his] young Camilla to consider it as [his] Deliverance; and ‘tis with Joy [David] perceive [his] own Sorrows are near having an End. … But [the narrator] ch[o]se to think he is escaped from the Malice of his pretended Friends, nor the Sufferings of his real ones, can ever again rend and torment his honest Heart (403). The ambiguous finale of David Simple leaves room for readers’ judgment: for some, death is David’s escape from the unfulfilling reality, and only the afterlife with family is the eternal utopia for him; while other people believe that the noble death is a proud farewell to his living utopia. No one is sure which suspicion is correct. According to the final description, the optimistic readers believe that the promising death tells the glorified life David lived, and the two surviving members are convinced to lead the rebirth of utopia in the future. To read it from this perspective, the novel is.