Comedy, type of drama or other art form the chief object of which, according to modern notions,

is to amuse. It is contrasted on the one hand with tragedy and on the other
with farce, burlesque, and other forms of humorous amusement.

Joseph Andrews by Henry Fielding is a comic and twisting narrative and an example of an early
novel. It follows the travels and exploits of the titular character, as well as a parson, a young
servant girl, and a various assortment of innkeepers, rogues, peasants, servants, and nobles. The
form of the novel is a seemingly unfocused succession of events, occurrences, and incidents,
many of which are similar to one another, and most of which are played out for comedic
purposes. Fielding admitted that he wrote Andrews in the “style and manner” of Cervantes, and
indeed there are many similar absurdities and thematic elements contained within
both Andrews and Cervantes’s Don Quixote. Andrews is considered one of the earliest novels
written in the English language, and the flexibilities provided by using that form allowed Fielding
to write in many long digressions; in the novel there are numerous times when the plot comes to
a standstill while there is a long discussion about religious or philosophical themes.

The form of a long prose work allows Fielding to construct a lengthy story, with many avenues
and many opportunities for comedic events and humorous descriptions of characters and actions.
It also allows him to play around with the relevance of certain plot points, which seem unduly
spun out when first read, but then turn out to be of crucial importance. The way all these
apparent detours converge in the last section of the book is cause for much of the humour, and is
a large reason why a long form prose work was the method chosen to tell the story; such a lengthy
series of events would not fit within a play or other short fiction. Having the final act of the novel
be the complicated truth of Joseph and Fanny’s birth, revealed through an incredible series of
coincidences is intentionally over the top and funny.

One principle way Fielding uses the form of the novel to create humour is through the numerous
character quirks that are developed throughout the story, especially the ones of Parson Adams.
Adams is a most peculiar person, who has many humorous traits and opinions. He is also
extremely absentminded which is the cause of several misadventures and unfortunate accidents.
His absentmindedness ends up being a great inconvenience not only to himself, but also to
Joseph Andrews. The Parson forgets at one point to bring his horse along with him for his travels,
and leaves it behind at an inn. Joseph, who is in a stagecoach along with some other characters,
notices the Parson without his horse and attempts to catch up to him to remind him, but “the
faster [the Coachman] drove, the faster ran the Parson, often crying out, Aye, aye, catch me if
you can” (Fielding 113). This is a humorous scene because of the misunderstanding which comes
from the Parson being clueless about his situation. It also is a way to further develop both his
character and the story. Fielding understands that since his work is quite long, it is impossible (or
very difficult) to read in one sitting. So he splits his novel up into books, and each book into
chapters. The humour is present in that he makes a point of explaining his action as an author,
and halts the story for an entire chapter to do so. He makes comparisons between different great
authors and their epic works, noting that Homer’s Iliad was divided in 24 books,
Virgil’s Aeneid into 12, and Milton’s Paradise Lost into 12 as well. Contrasting these works with
Joseph Andrews is silly, as Fielding seems to be placing his novel up with the masterpieces of
classical literature, and assigning equal importance to it. This section serves several comedic
purposes, for it is deliberately overblown and overcomplicated in its language, as well as being a
digression, while also comically comparing Andrews to much more serious stories.

This is yet another example of Fielding using the form of the novel to relay humour. The headings
after each chapter that provide a short summary of the section are in themselves humorous and
are another artistic choice by Fielding. The summaries are often ironic in their wording; for
instance one chapter calls the behaviour of the now widowed Lady Bobby as “affectionate and
mournful”, which is very much a euphemism for this rather unlikeable character. The headings
seem to be more naive than the rest of the text and might call a character “a mighty fine fellow”
when in fact the person will turn out to be a rogue. Fielding also is self-congratulatory in some of
the headings, as seen in sections like “after some very fine writing the History goes on”. These
headings are more clearly satiric than the rest of the novel, and in some ways are an
encapsulation of the entire comedic point of each section.

For the purpose of this essay, the third of these points will be focused on, namely the
metafictional nature of this stories. Fielding by providing a story within a story is playing with
form as well as content. Leonora’s story, being even more melodramatic and a parody within a
parody, draws attention to the artistic liberty present within this literary form; he can go off onto
chapter long diatribes and yet is confident that readers will continue to read, if only to get on to
the next section.

Fielding’s work with the early novel is significant for his ability to use its strengths to create
humour. He is allowed to develop ideas and characters, and to leave the plot and meander about
for pages and pages, yet always return to it whenever he chooses.

“The only Source of the true Ridiculous (as it appears to me) is Affectation.”

Fielding, 52

In the Preface to the novel, Fielding rejects burlesque as the depiction of “the monstrous,”
whereas he, as a comic writer, seeks to depict “the ridiculous”; that is, while burlesque heightens
distortions of value into a sense of unreality, comedy depicts only the forms of absurdity that
exist in real life. The phenomenon of “the true Ridiculous” in literature arises from the exposure
of “Affectation,” which is itself the source or sanction of much of the evil in the world. Thus, in
his preference for comedy over burlesque and for the ridiculous over the monstrous, Fielding
has a didactic and ethical purpose in addition to his simply humorous one.
“As when a hungry Tygress, who long had traversed the Woods in fruitless search, sees within the Reach
of her Claws a Lamb, she prepared to leap on her Prey; or as a voracious Pike, of immense Size, surveys
through the liquid Element a Roach or Gudgeon which cannot escape her Jaws, opens them wide to
swallow the little Fish: so did Mrs. Slipslop prepare to lay her violent amorous Hands on the poor
Joseph.”

Fielding, 74

This passage, which refers to Slipslop’s lustful attempt on Joseph in London, is a good example
of Fielding’s use of mock-epic diction. The comparison of the lecherous Slipslop to a “hungry
Tygress” is a satirical version of the Homeric simile; Homer’s epic poems employ many of these
highly detailed similes, often comparing valiant warriors to predatory animals. While Homer
used this technique to exalt the heroic actors in his tales, Fielding uses the disjunction between
elevated diction and “low” subject to poke fun at his characters. Sometimes, as here, the
character and action are sordid and the humor is somewhat harsh and satirical; at other times, as
when Fielding renders the epic battle of Joseph with the Hunter’s hounds, the character and
action are low in class status but good and honorable, and the humor is warmer and more
indulgent.
“[I]t is more than probable, poor Joseph, who obstinately adhered to his modest Resolution, must have
perished, unless the Postilion, (a lad who hath been since transported for robbing a Hen-roost) had
voluntarily stript off a great Coat, his only Garment, at the time swearing a great Oath, (for which he was
rebuked by the Passengers) ‘That he would rather ride in his Shirt all his Life, than suffer a Fellow-
Creature to lie in so miserable a Condition.’”

Fielding, 90-91

This incident of the poor Postilion’s lending Joseph his coat when the fastidious coach
passengers would prefer to leave him to die naked in a ditch is perhaps the most famous
illustration of hypocrisy in all of Fielding. It alludes to the parable of the Good Samaritan, in
which respectable passersby, including a priest, refuse to help a waylaid Jewish traveler until
finally a Samaritan, member of a despised class, stops to clothe the traveler and tend his
wounds; here the Postilion, like the Samaritan before him, shames his “betters” by acting
charitably despite his modest means. In addition to exposing the hypocrisy of the passengers,
this incident also touches on Joseph’s virtue, which verges on prudishness: he is so “modest”
that he would not approach the ladies in the coach while naked, even if it costs him his life.
Affectation, Vanity, and Hypocrisy
Fielding’s Preface declares that the target of his satire is the ridiculous, that “the only Source of
the true Ridiculous” is affectation, and that “Affectation proceeds from one of these two Causes,
Vanity, or Hypocrisy.” Hypocrisy, being the dissimulation of true motives, is the more dangerous
of these causes: whereas the vain man merely considers himself better than he is, the hypocrite
pretends to be other than he is. Thus, Mr. Adams is vain about his learning, his sermons, and his
pedagogy, but while this vanity may occasionally make him ridiculous, it remains entirely or
virtually harmless. By contrast, Lady Booby and Mrs. Slipslop counterfeit virtue in order to prey on
Joseph, Parson Trulliber counterfeits moral authority in order to keep his parish in awe, Peter
Pounce counterfeits contented poverty in order to exploit the financial vulnerabilities of other
servants, and so on. Fielding chose to combat these two forms of affectation, the harmless and
the less harmless, by poking fun at them, on the theory that humor is more likely than invective
to encourage people to remedy their flaws.
Although each writer aclcnowledges the intrusion of the "parody and burlesque imitations,'(xviii), none
recognize its influence in the very structure of the genre. Generally, critics believe that Fielding begaii
Joseph Andrews as another of the many burlesques of the novel of virtue, Pamela, but stumbled onto
the character of Adams and abandonedhis original purpose.in order to pursue an art. form of his own
invention. 9 While it is true that Fielding obviously burlesqued scenes from Pamela in Joseph Andrews, it
is more important · that he intentionally used the parody and burlesque imitations to make the
conventional epic form a comic work.
~ielding's effort to restri,ct the burlesque to the diction of a work alteJ;'ed the theory of the trad!tional
bu;lesque. In · altering the theory of the burlesque itself, he att~pted to a;l.ign it; with a more
respectable art--that of pE1.rody. ·. He .call$ his bU'rleE;ique "those parodies or burlesque imitation, 11
two mei:1,ns of art that are both concerned with :tmitating diction,

Ridicule was a -readily acceptable instrument for discovering the truth as this was __ the mediµm. on
which Shaftesbury based his "test .of truth, 112 Fielding', in fact, claimed ridicule as his province in
Joseph Andrews.

Giles Jacobs' condemnation of burlesque also associates burlesque wit ridicule when he notes that it
was the ridicule that could be found in burlesque which had corrupted modern poetry,11 Butlesque had
become so closely aligned with ridicule by 1755 that Samuel Johnson gave ridicule as chief definition for
burlesque, Naturally, burlesque, so closely associated with ridicule, could not escape a function of
delighting and instructing in the moral purpose of the age. Fielding complicates his own theory, bY
obviously distinguiehing between the burlesique and the ridicule, consequently limiting the moral
function of burlesque

https://shareok.org/bitstream/handle/11244/25887/Thesis-1969-P769l.pdf?sequence=1

https://medium.com/@MichaelB1/humour-in-henry-fieldings-joseph-andrews-43f5f9f97477

Fielding, Henry. Joseph Andrews and Shamela. New York: Penguin, 1999.