 |
| Picart, Shofar Sounded in a Portuguese Synagogue, 1728. |
Feel free to respond to this post with complaints, observations, perplexities, or advice about the first paper assignment as you work on it over the weekend. These rules show a halt in Pamela asserting her worth, but her comments...show that she has grown in her self-worth (Rule 20 and 22)
Beng married in this time came with so many intricacies and implications: maybe it was in fact the mature thing to be complacent, however twisted that may be.
Her action of writing her husband's lecture down not only shows her sincere effort to understand and serve her husband...but also helps her to identify what she disagrees with or finds challenging to comprehend.
All of the rules...have to do with her relationships to others....what this book shows as "moral" or "growth" isn't her personal growth, but her societal growth in her position as a wife and mother.
They halt her growth...[rules 2 and 37]...She simply accepts him as the better person worthy of more consideration.It's worth noting that Pamela does not accept these rules uncritically! She includes her commentary as she evaluates them carefully. Among the things she's looking for as she reads: evidence that Squire B is holding himself to a similar standard of thoughtfulness and respect (and she finds it). Also note the rules on how they will raise a child. Squire B is aware of his faults and excesses and does NOT want to raise a Squire B, Junior, who will misbehave in the same way (and he believes that Pamela's habits of self-discipline and virtue will help to mold the child in a different image than his own.
 | ||
| Pamela Writing (Joseph Highmore, 1745, Wikigallery) |
In volume II, we learn why Squire B. has chosen Pamela as a wife. On page 445, he explains that he believes that fewer Men than Women love better after marriage. This is why, the woman he should marry must be a woman he prefers above all her Sex. Secondly, he must be assured of her fidelity to him and preference of him over all other men. He states, “The Word Command, on my Side, or Obedience, on hers, I would have blotted from my vocabulary” (446). Although he declares that his married life would not be like the relationship between a master and a servant based on command and obedience, it is rather interesting that pages 448-451 are devoted to forty-eight rules upon which he expects Pamela to OBEY. It may seem as though volume II is nothing less than an instruction manual on how a good wife should be. Squire B. alludes to his imperfections, and advises her to be free to tell him anything so that “nothing may lie upon either of our minds that shall occasion the least Reservedness” (368, Richardson). Pamela, in response, does not point out any of his flaws, but rather, informs him of her graciousness and subjection to his will. She continuously refers to Squire B, as the “charming Man” and her “dearest dear Sir.” Squire B describes how many women lose their figure and dress after marriage “as if she would take no Pains to secure the Affection she had gained” (368, Richardson). He even tells her that he will rise in Summer at six in the morning, and that he will ALLOW her to lie “half an Hour after me, or so” (368, Richardson). A man such as Squire B. who wishes to never be denied chooses for a wife, a servant girl. He does not want a relationship based on command and obedience, and yet he constantly instructs her on how to be the wife he envisions her to be. One must wonder if such liberties would have been taken had she been a woman of noble birth. 2) Richardson gives Squire B. a past with Sally Godfrey. He even has an illegitimate child, Miss Goodwin. Are these experiences meant for us to have a harsher and more hypocritical look of Squire B., or rather, are these meant to show us Pamela’s bountiful love and goodness? Pamela is able to look past his double standard and manipulatively controlling ways and still remains faithful and always praising of his person. 3) What do you all think the lengthy Volume II is meant to signify? Do you think Victorian women would have read his instructions on being a good wife with complaisance or do you think they would have viewed his ideas critically? |
In his article “Pamela: Autonomy, Subordination, and the ‘State of Childhood’”, Raymond F. Hilliard explores the ways in which Samuel Richardson’s Pamela can be delineated into two separate statements about the nature of subordinate relationships in the eighteenth century. The first half of the novel, Hilliard argues, is marked by Pamela’s adolescent journey toward adulthood and the self-reliance and autonomy associated with it. In this half, Pamela still operates under the assumption that she is in a subordinate position to God, to her parents, to Squire B, to essentially any character of age or authority. She displays a type of childish ignorance that, Hilliard argues, works to her ultimate detriment. “…She is reluctant, for instance, to admit that Mrs. Jervis is complying with B’s plan to delay Pamela’s departure from Bedfordshire, and unable to realize that several of B’s other servants are not the single-minded well-wishers she likes to consider them” (204). However, Hilliard notes that this subordinate mentality slowly begins to melt away as the first half progresses, as Richardson attempts to separate Pamela from “all to whom she would look for ‘Direction’ or ‘Deliverance’” (204). In doing so, Richardson induces Pamela’s introspection and ultimate move toward autonomy and self-assurance.
This transitory coming-of-age reaches a breaking point in what Hilliard describes as the “emotional center” of the novel, where Pamela asserts her autonomy and singularly makes the decision to return to B and yield to his marriage proposal (217). In this moment, Hilliard contends that the characters reach a “temporary equality, a balance of power”, a break from “the great law of subordination” that so often dominates eighteenth century literature (202). He postulates that this is the moment in which Pamela reaches true adulthood and relinquishes the ignorance of childhood that distinguished her character in the previous half of the novel. The gradual isolation of Pamela from her figures of guidance reaches a threshold when she consciously chooses to give in to B. Hilliard notes that we may view this as Pamela’s “ascendancy over her master, for she has established a portrait of herself that totally seduces him” (209). This moment is fleeting, however, as Hilliard moves to classify the version of subordination and hierarchical relations we see in the second half.
As Pamela and B enter into the realm of marriage and domesticity, Hilliard argues that Pamela experiences a regression in terms of her autonomy. Instead of fully assimilating her newfound self-assurance, she reverts to a submissive, obedient version of herself characterized by the presumptive code of husband and wife. The “law of subordination” is again placed upon the characters and Pamela is relocated to what Hilliard describes as “childhood”. He borrows from an earlier Mary Wollstonecraft suggestion about the psychological nature of subordination. She argues that eighteenth century marriage was dominated by these hierarchical relationships in which a wife, whose principal concern was to dutifully please a husband, lapses into a childlike state of obedience (210-11). This parent-child relationship is abundant in the latter half of Pamela, Hilliard argues, as demonstrated through the interaction of B, Pamela, Lady Davers, and various servants.
Reading Hilliard’s article, I found myself intrigued by his claims, but ultimately in disagreement with them. Although I think that we can view Pamela’s marriage to B as an ultimate triumph and a testament to her autonomy, I do not see that particular episode as a breaking point in that agency she comes to possess. While she does enter into the sphere of domesticity and the patriarchal code that presumably follows, I did not see this as an end to her maturity and definitely not as a regression toward a character that was any worse than she was in the first volume. While she may not assert her dominance in a way that supposes any great change, there are still instances where Pamela is arguably autonomous and, in my opinion, certainly not reflective of a parent-child relationship. Even so, a certain level of subordination was normative in this time, so to describe Pamela’s and B’s relationship as peculiar or alarming does not seem valid. As modern readers, of course we would want to see a fully developed, independent heroine, but as far as the time period goes, I think Pamela does a great deal, even in the second half, to demonstrate that she is not fully subservient.
That being said, what do you make of this argument? Is there a parent-child hierarchy at play between Squire B and Pamela? Is Pamela an ultimately dynamic character or do we see this reversion to “childhood” that Hilliard describes?
Works Cited
Hillard, Raymond F. "Pamela: Autonomy, Subordination, and the 'State of Childhood'." Studies in Philology 83.2 (1986): 201. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 19 Sept. 2011.
In her article, “Pamela’s Work,” Laura J. Rosenthal explores the deeper “significance of… [Pamela’s] ‘return’ to manual labor,” and the underlying implication that the labor in question is actually “sex work” or prostitution (245, 249). According to Rosenthal, the obvious conflict between corruption and virtue that saturates the novel exists within the structure of a more traditional class conflict, however, she argues, there is also a more subtle conflict present: namely that of manual labor vs. prostitution for working class women. Rosenthal bases her argument on the multiple implications of the clothing bundle selection Pamela makes early on in the novel. The first bundle, consisting of fine clothing given to her by her late mistress, represents both the end of friendship and propriety with Lady B, and the loss of a possibility, albeit slim, of a genteel life. The second, referred to as the “wicked” bundle, represents the sexual and moral compromise being proffered by Master B and the possibility of employment as his kept mistress (245). The third bundle, then, consists of working-class clothes appropriate for a woman of manual labor, which is what would await her were she to choose virtuous innocence and return home to her family. Despite their appeal, Pamela refuses both the first and second bundles, choosing instead, at least verbally, the third bundle, thus choosing virtue over luxury or pleasure.
However, even though Pamela seems to choose the moral highroad here, by choosing labor over luxury, Rosenthal claims that the virtuous significance of these clothes “quickly becomes subsumed by their erotic allure” (247). Both when Pamela sees herself in these clothes, and also when B later sees her in the simplistic working-class frock, she is said to be just as beautiful and sexy, if not more so, than she is in finer clothing. Interestingly, Samuel Richardson seems to shy away from ever testing Pamela’s resolve to return to manual labor. While it is true that her virtue is tested time and time again, her commitment to abandoning her position and running from temptation is continuously delayed either by her desire to finish her work, rerouted coach rides, or the marriage proposal she recieves shortly after arriving back home. From this, Rosenthal draws the conclusion that Richardson uses clothing as a commentary not only on class and social status, but also as a way to imply that Pamela, whose hands are too soft for actual manual labor, would mostly likely turn to prostitution were she to actually leave B’s estate (250-51).
According to Rosenthal, this invasion of sexual immorality into an otherwise virtuous way of life (that of the working-class woman who returns home to avoid being ruined by the advances of her male master), explores the possibility of virtue's failure in young women, and, more importantly, touches on the “broader crisis of labor and economic security for women, for which prostitution emerges as a symptom rather than a cause” (251). In fact, the overarching argument of the entire article, although hard to decipher until the end, is that the capitalization of labor via the rise in industry during the eighteenth century devalues the role of women within the household, forcing them to turn to the public sphere to provide for themselves and their families. Of course, this was, in and of itself, problematic because the wages, hours, and positions available to women were extremely limited. Thus, because of their decreased significance and social restrictions, many working-class women turned to prostitution as a means of employment. (252). Pamela is said to represent this conflict: no matter what she chooses – to remain in B’s service and most likely succumb to his advances, or return home to manual labor for which she was not bred nor accustomed to – she runs the risk of having no choice but to compromise her virtue for the sake of her livelihood.
Rosenthal emphasized a lot of aspects of the novel that are otherwise easy to overlook. For instance, she points out that Pamela never really has to face the consequences of maintaining her virtue in the face of B’s advances – she thinks quite a bit about returning home, but never actually does for any length of time. Prior to reading this article, I thought that the delay of her departure was simply a frustrating aspect of 18th century literature - the story would end if she followed through - but now, I am leaning towards believing it served a larger purpose than just prolonging the story. I also had never thought of manual labor being the same, or falling into the same category, as prostitution, but Rosenthal does make a compelling case that the two are one in the same in this novel.
That being said, do you buy it? Does Richardson purposefully imply that Pamela’s return to manual labor would inevitably lead her to a life of prostitution? Furthermore, if that implication exists, what does that do to the moral of the novel? Is Pamela still a book on how men and women can go about preserving their virtue and resisting temptation, and if so, does it change the temptation in question from sleeping with Master B to succumbing to a life of working-class prostitution?
Rosenthal, Laura J. "Pamela's Work." Eighteenth Century: Theory and Interpretation 46.3 (2005): 245-253. MLA International Bibliography. EBSCO. Web. 14 Sept. 2011.
In his article “The Epistolary Monitor in Pamela,” Richard Hauer Costa discusses the use of epistolary and diary narrative and argues that the (primarily) epistolary form “has an efficacy in Pamela beyond the merits commonly ascribed to it” (39). He explains that writing in the form of letters was natural for Samuel Richardson, as Richardson himself wrote thousands of letters during his lifetime. However, the epistolary form of Pamela carries more significance than simply a young girl writing letters; the letters themselves imbue life into the novel and take on a life of their own.
Costa explains that “epistolary form is the dues ex machina for the novel,” that is, it is introduced in order to help make sense of any seeming improbabilities in the plot (40). Costa believes, and I agree with him, that in Pamela’s character, we see a duel nature: a woman who is desperately wants to give into the predatory man that is pursuing her while attempting to maintain appearances of chastity. Pamela writes in her letters that she is terribly afraid of her ‘Master’ and that she fears for her reputation, yet she lingers in his house, making only half-hearted attempts to find lodging elsewhere. What Costa means by the term dues ex machina, then, is that because Pamela is writing the letters, we are able to see this duality in her person. She is writing her personal feelings and creating a very intimate space on the page, but, simultaneously, she is aware that others will read her letters. It is, then, in the epistolary form that the ambiguity in her motives is seen.
Through the creation of this intimate diary space, the epistolary form takes on the role as an active agent within the story. Again, Pamela is creating a private sphere through documenting her private feelings, and she is furnishing this private domain to her own specifications. She is communicating feelings she attributes to herself, and writing personal feelings; however, these letters are also written with the purpose of being read by another party, which means that they are not an entirely private space like a diary would be. She continuously refers to Mr. B as a “Tempter,” yet she shows sadness when he manipulates her and shows “concern…to see such a Gentleman so demean himself, and lessen the Regard he used to have in the Eyes of all his Servants on my account.” She then immediately disregards the severity of the situation and what she has just said and turns her focus to superficiality by declaring, “But I am to tell you of my new Dress to Day” (55). The letters act as live agent in that Pamela’s true nature is revealed in all that she says/does not say and all that she does/does not do. She declares to be afraid of Mr. B, but then she immediately changes the topic to something trivial. She continually denies his advances but makes no attempt to remove herself from the situation. As I have not yet read the entire novel I cannot make a judgment regarding all her motives, but it does seem as though she enjoys Mr. B’s advances but wants to retain the appearances of chastity. Again, she is betrayed in her letters as the epistolary form takes on the role as an active agent in the story. As Costa mentions, The writing of the leters is only the beginning; they are copied, sent, received, showed about, discussed, answered, even perhaps hidden, intercepted, stolen, altered, or forged” (40). Beyond showing insight to Pamela’s dual nature and actions, the letters are literally active.
So, I ask…do you think Pamela is interested in Mr. B’s advances? Do you think that the epistolary form gives us any information or insight to Pamela? How does the epistolary form differ from the diary form; how are they similar; and what sort of secrets of ourselves are given away in each form?
Hauer Costa, Richard. "The Epistolary Monitor in Pamela." Modern Language Quarterly 31.1 (1970): 38-47. Academic Search Premier. Web. 12 Sept. 2011.
