Produced by Chris Curnow, Joseph Cooper, Josephine Paolucci
and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at
https://www.pgdp.net.
THE AUGUSTAN REPRINT SOCIETY
PAMELA CENSURED
(_1741_)
_Introduction by_
CHARLES BATTEN, JR.
PUBLICATION NUMBER _175_
WILLIAM ANDREWS CLARK MEMORIAL LIBRARY
_University of California, Los Angeles_
_1976_
GENERAL EDITORS
William E. Conway, William Andrews Clark Memorial Library
George Robert Guffey, University of California, Los Angeles
Maximillian E. Novak, University of California, Los Angeles
David S. Rodes, University of California, Los Angeles
ADVISORY EDITORS
James L. Clifford, Columbia University
Ralph Cohen, University of Virginia
Vinton A. Dearing, University of California, Los Angeles
Arthur Friedman, University of Chicago
Louis A. Landa, Princeton University
Earl Miner, Princeton University
Samuel H. Monk, University of Minnesota
Everett T. Moore, University of California, Los Angeles
Lawrence Clark Powell, William Andrews Clark Memorial Library
James Sutherland, University College, London
H. T. Swedenberg, Jr., University of California, Los Angeles
Robert Vosper, William Andrews Clark Memorial Library
CORRESPONDING SECRETARY
Beverly J. Onley, William Andrews Clark Memorial Library
INTRODUCTION
The publication of _Pamela; or, Virtue Rewarded_ on 6 November 1740
occasioned the kind of immediate and hyperbolic praise which would have
turned the head of an author less vain than Richardson. Proclaimed by
Aaron Hill as being "the Soul of Religion," and by Knightley Chetwood as
the book next to the Bible which ought to be saved "if all the Books in
England were to be burnt," _Pamela_ seemed certain of universal acclaim,
especially when the Reverend Benjamin Slocock praised it extravagantly
from the pulpit of St. Saviour's in Southwark within two months of its
initial printing. Even the "Objections" voiced by several correspondents
and published at the beginning of the second edition of _Pamela_ (14
February 1741) seemed relatively inconsequential when weighed against
the _Gentleman's Magazine's_ assertion in January 1741 that every
Londoner with the slightest curiosity was reading _Pamela_.[1]
Literary and moral opposition to _Pamela_ gradually began to mount,
however. April 1741 saw the publication of the first and perhaps most
perceptive attacks on Richardson's novel: _An Apology for the Life of
Mrs. Shamela Andrews_ appeared on 2 April, followed by _Pamela Censured:
In a Letter to the Editor_ some twenty-three days later. While we now
feel certain that Henry Fielding wrote _Shamela_, the author of _Pamela
Censured_ has eluded us.[2] Though both works attack _Pamela_ on moral
grounds and incidentally make unflattering comments about Colley Cibber,
their literary methods differ so greatly that it is impossible to tell
whether or not _Shamela_ influenced _Pamela Censured_ to any extent.
Fielding's parody is too well known to be described in detail here.
Though his sophisticated wit lashes out in a number of directions, he
attacks _Pamela_ on primarily two fronts: in prefatory letters he
assails those who would praise Richardson's novel for its moral lessons,
while in the body of _Shamela_ he burlesques the psychological
motivations of Pamela herself, showing that she is motivated by
mercenary "vartue" rather than angelic virtue. In spite of its hasty
composition, _Shamela_ clearly displays a kind of literary charm and
insight that was soon to characterize _Joseph Andrews_ and _Tom Jones_.
Because it lacks Fielding's wit, _Pamela Censured_ is now almost
forgotten even though it elicited an even stronger response than
_Shamela_ from some of Richardson's defenders and detractors. The
"Introduction" to _Pamela's Conduct in High Life_ (1741), for instance,
airily dismisses _Shamela's_ "low Humour adapted to the Standard of a
_petit Maitre's_ Capacity" which has been applauded only "among the Weak
and Vicious." By contrast, the same work devotes an entire four pages to
answering the various charges levelled by _Pamela Censured_ after first
attacking its author for giving readers "such an Idea of his own vicious
Inclination, that it would not ... wrong him to think the Shrieks of a
Woman in Labour would excite his Passions, and the Agonies of a dying
Woman enflame his Blood, and stimulate him to commit a Rape." Aaron
Hill, who had apparently ignored the publication of _Shamela_, angrily
conveyed to Richardson a rumor that _Pamela Censured_ was a bookseller's
contrivance written in order to promote sales among readers with
prurient interests. (Richardson, distressed over such a suggestion,
emphatically wrote "Quite mistaken!" in the margin of Hill's letter.)
But if this stratagem was not employed to boost sales in England, it
perhaps was used across the Channel, where _Pamela Censured_, under the
title _Pamela, Zedelyk Beoordeeld_, appeared in Holland some months
before a complete Dutch translation of Richardson's novel was ever
published.[3]
To Richardson's contemporaries, _Pamela Censured_ must consequently have
seemed a much more serious attack than _Shamela_. The humor of
Fielding's parody might be misinterpreted or at least dismissed as
"low"; in _Pamela Censured_, the rather personal attack on the author of
_Pamela_ and the precise censure of specific passages could not,
however, be misconstrued or ignored. Moreover, the critical principle
behind _Pamela Censured_ appears quite sound, at least on its most
simple level: _Pamela_ is bad because it violates what might be called a
literary "truth in labeling" law. Casting himself in the role of
"consumer advocate," the author of _Pamela Censured_ systematically
attempts to show that _Pamela_ fails to live up to the advertisement on
its title page:
a SERIES of FAMILIAR LETTERS FROM A Beautiful Young DAMSEL,
To her PARENTS. Now first Published in order In order to
cultivate the Principles of VIRTUE and RELIGION in the Minds
of the YOUTH of BOTH SEXES. A Narrative which has its
Foundation in TRUTH and NATURE; and at the same time that it
agreeably entertains, by a Variety of _curious_ and
_affecting_ INCIDENTS, is intirely divested of all those
Images, which, in too many Pieces calculated for Amusement
only, tend to _inflame_ the Minds they should _instruct_.
In applying this test to _Pamela_, the author of _Pamela Censured_
displays a curious mixture of naivete and sophistication. His first
attack involves a silly and perhaps consciously dishonest misreading of
the words "Now first Published" on _Pamela's_ title page. While this
phrase clearly means that Pamela's letters are now being published for
the first time, _Pamela Censured_ attacks _Pamela_ for claiming to be
the first work ever aimed at cultivating "the Principles of VIRTUE and
RELIGION in the Minds of the YOUTH of BOTH SEXES." When _Pamela
Censured_ later assails _Pamela_ for not telling a true story, as the
title page advertises, it naively fails to understand that by the time
of _Pamela's_ publication the guise of telling a true story had
virtually become a fictional convention.
But when _Pamela Censured_ considers the implications of _Pamela's_
fictionality, it raises two valid literary problems, treating the first
in a cursory fashion and devoting to the second most of its space and
attention. If, as _Pamela Censured_ first of all asserts, the "editor"
of _Pamela_ is really the author, then all of the prefatory material in
_Pamela_ must be seen as proof of the author's immorality: he is a man
consumed by vanity. Secondly, this author must be convicted on even more
serious moral grounds: his fiction instructs readers to sin and enflames
those passions which he, as a moral man, should extinguish. Not only is
this a clear moral flaw in the author and in his book, but it also
blatantly contradicts the promises made on the title page.
In attacking _Pamela's_ morality, _Pamela Censured_ raises a problem
inherent in virtually all narrative fiction: stories inevitably lead
some readers to imitate the vicious characters rather than the virtuous
ones, in spite of any moral statements made by the author or any
punishments meted out at the end of the story. Even in "forbidding a
silly ostler to grease the horse's teeth," as Alithea says in _The
Country Wife_ (III, i), one may very easily teach him "to do't." Such
concerns, of course, are not new. From Plato and Horace to the
Neo-Humanists of the twentieth century, critics have dwelled in varying
degrees on the moral effects of literature. The eighteenth century,
reacting against the supposed immorality of the Restoration, often
emphasized the _utile_, losing sight of the _dulce_ in its criticism.
_Pamela Censured_ in its moral approach bears a striking similarity to
Jeremy Collier's _Short View of the Immorality and Profaneness of the
English Stage_ (1698): both virtually try to bludgeon to death literary
works for inciting immoral actions. In one respect, however, _A Short
View_ exercises a bit more control than does _Pamela Censured_. While
Collier refuses to quote directly from the offensive literature,
affirming that his intention is "rather to kill the _Root_ than
_Transplant_ it," the author of _Pamela Censured_ meticulously provides
his readers with a compendium of the so-called dirty parts of _Pamela_.
Such attention to the morality of literature, moreover, may easily
backfire. The anonymous author of _A Vindication of the Stage_ (1698)
concludes that Collier's "dwelling so long on the Subject of Debauchery,
argues something of Delight and Pleasure in the Case." Likewise, the
author of _Pamela's Conduct in High Life_ sees the treatment of sexual
immodesty in _Pamela Censured_ as evidence of "how much of the Goat"
there is in the author's "Constitution."[4]
More importantly, however, _Pamela Censured_--as the first sustained
criticism of what is probably the first English novel--amasses much of
the moral ammunition which was to be fired at realistic novels during
the eighteenth century. Echoes of _Pamela Censured_ may, for instance,
be heard in Clara Reeve's _Progress of Romance_ (1785), where Hortensia
comments that in reading, "The seeds of vice and folly are sown in the
heart,--the passions are awakened,--false expectations are raised.--A
young woman is taught to expect adventures and intrigues." Euphrasia,
who expresses Clara Reeve's attitudes throughout the work, qualifies
this statement, pointing out that these ill effects come from reading
novels, but not romances.[5] Indeed, romances do not mislead readers
precisely because they are so removed from real life. Moreover,
romances morally instruct readers without hazarding the pitfalls
inherent in novels. Dr. John Gregory's _Comparative View_ (1765), for
instance, concludes that:
Notwithstanding the ridiculous extravagance of the old
Romance in many particulars, it seems calculated to produce
more favourable effects on the morals of Mankind, than our
modern Novels.--If the former did not represent men as they
really are, it represented them better; its Heroes were
patterns of courage, generosity, truth, humanity, and the
most exalted virtues. Its Heroines were distinguished for
modesty, delicacy, and the utmost dignity of manners.--The
latter [i.e., novels] represent Mankind too much what they
are, paint such scenes of pleasure and vice as are unworthy
to see the light, and thus in a manner hackney youth in the
ways of wickedness, before they are well entered into the
World; expose the fair sex in the most wanton and shameless
manner to the eyes of the world.[6]
Novels tend to "inflame the Passions and corrupt the Heart" of the
reader because they treat real life with all its sordid concerns: sex,
social status, pride, money, and the like. If the novel describes such
matters in a realistic fashion, "warm scenes" will inevitably creep into
it. As _Pamela Censured_ complains, men are inflamed by the description
of a woman's body, especially when she seems about to be ravished; women
are corrupted into believing they can seduce a man into a lucrative
marriage without any moral or physical danger. Novels, moreover, are
most likely to inflame and corrupt young readers, who lack experience
and who are frequently ruled by their passions.[7]
To a moral man like Richardson, the criticisms in _Pamela Censured_ must
have seemed painfully serious. The pamphlet virtually proclaims his
novel a total failure by showing that it tends "to _excite
Lasciviousness_"--not "the Principles of VIRTUE and RELIGION"--among its
readers. In addition, _Pamela_ is especially pernicious since its title
page advertises that it is written for the "YOUTH of BOTH SEXES,"
precisely those people who--according to _Pamela Censured_--must not
read this book. _Pamela Censured_ concludes with an appeal to the author
of _Pamela_ to emend or strike out entirely the offending passages from
his novel.
Richardson's revisions bear witness to the seriousness with which he
took such criticism. For the fifth edition (22 September, 1741), he
toned down the extravagant praises in the introductory letters, and for
the sixth edition (7 December 1741), he entirely omitted these letters,
substituting in their place a table of contents. The "warm scenes"
furthermore gradually began to loose their warmth. In the fifth edition,
Pamela now lies face down on the floor while Mr. B peeks through the
keyhole (Letter XV). _Pamela Censured_ had attacked the original passage
for exciting "Passions of Desire" by picturing Pamela stretched out on
the floor, presumably having collapsed on her back (p. 31). Richardson's
change indicates more about his sense of decorum and his attention to
_Pamela Censured_ than about his ignorance--as Eaves and Kimpel
imply--concerning sexual perversions.[8]
By the time Richardson's carefully corrected fourteenth edition appeared
in 1801, even more changes had crept into those passages which _Pamela
Censured_ found particularly objectionable. Mr. B no longer offers "to
take" Pamela "on his Knee, with some Force"; he now more modestly lifts
her up and offers "to set" her on his knee, without any mention of force
(Letter XV). While Mr. B originally "by Force Kissed" Pamela's "Neck and
Lips," he now simply kisses Pamela--no portion of her anatomy
mentioned--while she struggles against him (Letter XV). Likewise,
instead of passionately putting his hand in Pamela's bosom, Mr. B in the
revised version merely tries to kiss her neck (Letter XV) or continues
holding her in his arms (Letter XXV). Because of her lover's more modest
approach in Letter XXV, Pamela no longer breaks out "in a cold clammy
sweat." Pamela's reasons for not succumbing to Mr. B's advances (Letter
XIX), which _Pamela Censured_ found morally shoddy, are clarified
somewhat by the inclusion of a new moralizing passage concerning her
relation to Mr. B:
He may make me great offers, and may, perhaps, intend to
deck me out in finery, the better to gratify his own pride;
but I should be a wicked creature indeed, if, for the sake
of riches or favour, I should forfeit my good name; yea, and
worse than any other young body of my sex; because I can so
contentedly return to my poverty again, and think it less
disgrace to be obliged to live upon rye-bread and water, as
I used to do, than to be a harlot to the greatest man in the
world.
To make Pamela's moral purity even clearer, Richardson causes tears to
appear in Mrs. Jervis's eyes as she hears Pamela's virtuous
protestations. Though the reader originally watches Pamela pull off her
stays and "stockens," these details are now omitted (Letter XXV). Mr.
B's clothing loses some of its extravagance, his dressing gown no longer
being silver (Letter XXV) and his waistcoat no longer trimmed in gold
(Letter XXVII). Moreover, Mr. B exercises a bit more restraint (or at
least Pamela's descriptions seem a bit less ambiguous): while in the
first edition he comes to Pamela's bed, in the later version he simply
approaches her "bed-side" (Letter XV). For the fourteenth edition,
Richardson omits the "obscene ... double Entendre" in which Mr. B wishes
he could have Pamela "as Quick another Way" (Letter XXVII). In an almost
passive fashion, Mr. B releases Pamela from his clutches, "loosing his
arms with an air," while in the original version he obviously keeps a
passionate hold on her (Saturday Morning [37th day of confinement]).
During Mr. B's last attempt at rape, Pamela no longer offers up her
prayers "all undrest" (though she does have her underclothes in her
hand), and Mr. B no longer approaches her bed breathing "all quick and
short." Once the attempted rape is over and Pamela awakens from her
faint, she (in the revised version) does not speculate concerning "the
Liberties taken with her in her deplorable State" (Tuesday Night [40th
day of confinement]). Finally, Pamela is now less brazen when led by Mr.
B into the alcove where he proclaims his love. She now prudently
considers that she can safely go there for two reasons: the alcove has
"a passage through it" and Mr. B had already led her there "once without
stopping" (Wednesday Morning [41st day of confinement]).[9]
While Richardson's revisions may seem extensive, they in no respect
remove or change all of the objectionable passages that _Pamela
Censured_ so severely criticizes. A considerable amount of hanky-panky
remains in the last version of _Pamela_. Mr. B, for instance, still
tries to examine Pamela "to her under Petticoat" (Letter XXIV), and he
even gets to grope--though only once--for her breasts (Tuesday Night
[40th day of confinement]). It should not be surprising, however, that
Richardson failed to achieve the "successful" expurgations found in
Victorian bowdlerizations of his novel. While he undoubtedly tried to
clean up his descriptions, Richardson nevertheless had to keep in mind
his novel's artistic integrity (something the bowdlerizers did not do).
In order to show the stages through which a virtuous young woman must
realistically pass when tempted by a physically attractive, though
morally reprehensible young man, Richardson had to describe attempted
rapes and their effects. In so doing, he undoubtedly hoped his readers
would keep in mind the morally unambiguous end of his novel (which,
incidentally, _Pamela Censured_ virtually ignores). Some "warm scenes,"
as a consequence, seem necessary in this novel, and to remove all of
them would, in effect, change _Pamela_ into something radically
different, namely a romance.
Though most of the attack in _Pamela Censured_ simply reflects the
author's prejudice against the sexual implications of realistic
descriptions, the pamphlet occasionally alludes to a further moral
problem, one which has bothered readers since the time of Fielding.
"Instead of being artless and innocent," Pamela seems to have "as much
Knowledge of the Arts of the Town, as if she had been born and bred in
_Covent_ Garden" (pp. 21-22). As a consequence, she appears "mighty
skillful" (p. 26) in her dealings with Mr. B. In spite of these hints,
_Pamela Censured_ stops short of concluding--as _Shamela_ does--that
Pamela is motivated by an immoral desire to trap Mr. B into marriage
rather than by an overwhelming desire to maintain her virtue at any
cost. Perhaps the author of _Pamela Censured_ contemplated this moral
ambiguity as the subject of his projected "Second Epistle" (p. 64), a
work which seems never to have appeared in print, if indeed it was ever
written.
_Pamela Censured_, nevertheless, casually makes a provocative comparison
which, if developed, might easily have thrown light on the artistic
reasons behind Pamela's morally questionable actions. In its opening
pages, _Pamela Censured_ indicates that _Pamela_, at least in its title,
is less "modest" than Chevalier de Mouhy's _La Paysanne parvenue_
(1735-37), published in English as _The Fortunate Country Maid. Being
the Entertaining Memoirs of the Present Celebrated Marchioness of L----
V----: Who from a Cottage, through a Great Variety of Diverting
Adventures, Became a Lady of the First Quality in the Court of France_
(1741). One can only wish that _Pamela Censured_ had developed its
comparison in a thorough and sophisticated fashion, indicating the moral
implications of the differences between these two stories.
_The Fortunate Country Maid_, first of all, bears a striking resemblance
to _Pamela_: in both works the heroines, almost identical in social
position, face similar trials and ultimately are rewarded in the same
fashion. A brief description of the plot of _The Fortunate Country Maid_
should adequately indicate these similarities to anyone already familiar
with _Pamela_. Jenny, the heroine of _The Fortunate Country Maid_, comes
from the lower social ranks, her father a common woodcutter in the
forest of Fountainbleau. The young Marquis of L---- V----, son of
Jenny's godfather, singles her out for his special attention because of
her beauty and charm. Though conscious of the social distinctions which
bar her marriage to the Marquis, Jenny nonetheless falls in love with
him, all the while uneasy that she might be "ruined." Her fears indeed
are not ill-founded. After learning social amenities in the household of
the Countess of N----, her godmother, Jenny embarks on a series of
trials, including an attempted rape, an offer to be set up as a kept
woman, threats of an arranged marriage, and even proposals for a
clandestine wedding. Held a virtual prisoner, Jenny ponders the
advisability of escape; ultimately she decides that it would be better
to forfeit her life rather than loose her reputation. One of her last
conflicts involves a menacing Swiss soldier who tries to take her into
his custody. When the Marquis appears to be on the point of death, Jenny
clearly recognizes the genuine depth of her love for him. At the
conclusion of the story, Jenny and the Marquis are married, the Marquis'
father finally accepting this unconventional alliance only after having
been convinced of Jenny's virtue. Everyone seems to live happily ever
after, including Jenny's parents, who move from their cottage to the
Estate de F---- A----, property which they will one day own. This
happiness, however, is tempered somewhat by the realization that Jenny
and the Marquis must carefully justify their marriage to the society in
which they live.
It is tempting, because of the obvious similarities between these two
works, to suggest that Richardson knew and was influenced by _The
Fortunate Country Maid_. On the other hand we perhaps should not doubt
Richardson's basic honesty when he says "I am not acquainted in the
least with the French Language or Writers: And that it was Chance and
not Skill or Learning, that made me fall into this way of
Scribbling."[10] In any event, these parallels must raise provocative
questions concerning Richardson's possible indebtedness to this work.
In spite of these overwhelming similarities, the plots of _Pamela_ and
_The Fortunate Country Maid_ fundamentally differ in one important
respect. In _Pamela_, Mr. B tries to rape the heroine; he offers to make
her his whore: he attempts to arrange for her a dishonorable marriage
with Parson Williams; and he ultimately weds her himself. In contrast,
the Marquis of L---- V---- stands virtually outside the action during
most of _The Fortunate Country Maid_. Jenny fends off a rape, but it is
attempted by Chevalier d'Elbieux; she rejects the position of a whore,
but it is offered by M. de G---- and his housekeeper (who incidentally
is much like Mrs. Jervis); she avoids an arranged marriage, but it is
proposed by M. de G---- and M. Gripart. Jenny does eventually, however,
marry the Marquis. Once the Chevalier d'Elbieux--villain of the first
part of the story--reforms and becomes a monk, the role of villain
devolves on the Marquis of L---- V----'s father, who tries to block at
all turns the impending marriage between his son and this peasant girl.
It is the elder Marquis who causes St. Fal to imprison Jenny, and it is
Jenny's plot to avoid the elder Marquis which causes her to be
threatened by the Colbrand-like Swiss. Throughout all this, the young
Marquis remains unblemished, his proposal of a clandestine marriage and
his excessive jealousy simply indicating his passionate love, not his
moral turpitude.
The implications of this important difference between Mr. B and the
Marquis of L---- V---- should be clear to us even if they were not to
the author of _Pamela Censured_. As Ralph Rader indicates in a recent
essay dealing with, among other things, the narrative form of _Pamela_:
"Richardson's chief problem in the novel is the need his form imposes to
make Mr. B. both a villain and a hero. B. must threaten Pamela and
threaten her increasingly, else our sense of her danger and the merit
which develops from her response to danger will not increase, as the
form requires, along lines that make her ultimate reward possible; but
the more directly and villainously he does threaten her, the less
acceptable he will appear as an ultimate and satisfactory reward for
her, something that the form requires also."[11] Jenny's reward, her
marriage to the Marquis of L---- V----, raises no serious moral
questions since the Marquis remains virtuous throughout the story.
Moreover, while Jenny carefully protects her chastity, she does not in
any sense seem motivated by mercenary desires since the preservation of
her chastity does not necessarily lead to her marriage with the Marquis.
Pamela's reward, on the other hand, is marriage to a vicious though
presumably reformed rake. The preservation of her chastity, furthermore,
seems motivated by mercenary goals. Finding herself in a situation where
she either looses her chastity and becomes Mr. B's whore or preserves
her chastity and becomes his wife, Pamela clearly chooses the more
profitable alternative.
The artistic success of _Clarissa_ undoubtedly reflects in part the
lesson Richardson learned from such moral attacks as _Pamela Censured_
and _Shamela_. While "warm scenes" remain in his second novel--as indeed
they must in any realistic portrayal of male-female
relations--Richardson continually tempers these scenes with clear
indications of Lovelace's vicious nature and careful forebodings of
Clarissa's tragic fate. Moreover, unlike Pamela, whose reward is
marriage to her would-be rapist, Clarissa escapes from her seducer,
achieving a morally unambiguous reward, her heroic death.
University of California
Los Angeles
NOTES TO THE INTRODUCTION
[1] Aaron Hill to Samuel Richardson, 17 December 1740, printed in
"Introduction to this Second Edition," _Pamela; or, Virtue Rewarded_,
ed. T. C. Duncan Eaves and Ben D. Kimpel (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co.,
1971), p. 9; Knightley Chetwood to Ralph Courteville, 27 January 1741,
cited in _Pamela_, ed. Eaves and Kimpel, p. vi; _Gentleman's Magazine_,
11 (1741), 56.
[2] For dates of publication, see T. C. Duncan Eaves and Ben D. Kimpel,
_Samuel Richardson: A Biography_ (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1971), pp.
127, 129; concerning Fielding's composition of _Shamela_, see Charles B.
Woods, "Fielding and the Authorship of _Shamela_," _PQ_, 25 (1946),
248-72.
[3] B. W., "Introduction," _Pamela's Conduct in High Life_ (London: Ward
and Chandler, 1741), I, xii-xiii; Alan Dugald McKillop, _Samuel
Richardson: Printer and Novelist_ (Chapel Hill: Univ. of North Carolina
Press, 1936), p. 78; _The Richardson-Stinstra Correspondence and
Stinstra's Prefaces to Clarissa_, ed. William C. Slattery (Carbondale:
Southern Illinois Univ. Press, 1969), pp. xxiii-xxiv.
[4] Collier, _A Short View of the Immorality, and Profaneness of the
English Stage_ (London: S. Keble, R. Sare, and H. Hindmarsh, 1698),
chap. I; _A Vindication of the Stage, with the Usefulness and Advantages
of Dramatick Representations_ (London: Joseph Wild, 1698), p. 6;
_Pamela's Conduct_, I, xiii.
[5] _The Progress of Romance and the History of Charoba, Queen of
AEgypt_ (1785; rpt. New York: Facsimile Text Society, 1930), II, 78.
[6] _A Comparative View of the State and Faculties of Man with Those of
the Animal World_ (London: J. Dodsley, 1765), pp. 138-39.
[7] As twentieth-century readers, we are probably more familiar
with--and more sympathetic to--the side that supported the ethical
superiority of novels over romances. Much of Catherine Moreland's
education in Jane Austen's _Northanger Abbey_ (1818), for instance,
involves her gradual realization of the inferiority of romances. Her
errors continue as long as she expects to lead a life like that of Emily
in Ann Radcliffe's _Mysteries of Udolpho_ (1794). Crucial to Catherine's
education is her discovery "that human nature, at least in the midland
counties of England," is not "to be looked for" in romances (chap. xxv).
Romances can be dangerous since they often provide faulty models of
moral action for readers who are likely to confuse romantic adventures
with the roles they must assume in real life. This attack on romances in
_Northanger Abbey_, moreover, is neither new nor unique, Catherine
Moreland being but the literary descendant of such eighteenth-century
"female quixotes" as Polly Peachum, Lydia Languish, Polly Honeycomb, and
Lydia Melford.
[8] Eaves and Kimpel, _Samuel Richardson_, p. 129.
[9] For a more thorough discussion of Richardson's revisions, see T. C.
Duncan Eaves and Ben D. Kimpel, "Richardson's Revisions of _Pamela_,"
_Studies in Bibliography_, 20 (1967), 61-88.
[10] Richardson's letter to William Warburton, 14 April 1748, cited in
Eaves and Kimpel, _Samuel Richardson_, p. 118.
[11] "Defoe, Richardson, Joyce, and the Concept of Form in the Novel,"
in _Autobiography, Biography, and the Novel_ (Los Angeles: William
Andrews Clark Memorial Library, 1973), p. 36.
BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE
The facsimile of _Pamela Censured_ (1741) is reproduced by permission
from the copy (Shelf Mark: *EC7/R3961/T741p) in the Houghton Library,
Harvard University. The total type-page (p. 7) measures 166 x 83 mm.
PAMELA CENSURED:
IN A LETTER TO THE EDITOR:
SHEWING
That under the Specious Pretence of Cultivating the Principles of Virtue
in the Minds of the Youth of both Sexes, the MOST ARTFUL and ALLURING
AMOROUS IDEAS are convey'd.
And that, instead of being divested of all Images that tend to
_inflame_; Her Letters abound with Incidents, which must necessarily
raise in the unwary Youth that read them, EMOTIONS _far distant_ from
the PRINCIPLES of VIRTUE.
Exemplified in many Quotations, with a CRITICAL REVIEW, and REMARKS upon
the _Whole_.
Ridet hoc, inquam, Venus ipsa; rident
Simplices Nymphae, ferus & Cupido,
Semper ardentes acuens Sagittas
Cote Cruenta.
HORAT.
_LONDON:_
Printed for J. ROBERTS, at the _Oxford Arms_, in _Warwick-Lane_.
MDCCXLI.
[Illustration]
To the REVEREND
Doctor _SLOCOCK_,
CHAPLAIN of St. _Saviour's_ in _Southwark_.
REVEREND SIR,
When a Person, whose _Profession_ and _Character_ in the World claim a
_Reverence_ and _Attention_, exerts himself in earnestly recommending a
Piece to our Perusal, as he bespeaks Esteem for it, so consequently we
are induced to be more curious in our Inspection thereof; especially if
that Recommendation is back'd by the Sanction of being deliver'd from
the _most solemn Place_, and from whence we are to expect Nothing but
Truth and Virtue. _PAMELA_ has been honour'd in this Manner, both the
_Pulpit_ and the _Press_ have joined in its Praises, and extoll'd it as
the most perfect Piece of the Kind. This excited me to the Reading, and
pleas'd that this Age had been capable of producing so much finish'd
Excellence, which I concluded it must be from the extraordinary
Encomiums so lavishly bestow'd on it, I open'd the Book with an Esteem
but little short of Veneration; but upon Perusal was amazed to find
Passages, which a Gentleman who is set apart and devoted, not only to
Morality, but the strictest Virtue and Piety, must be conscious to
himself are inconsistent with either, and even blush at them while he
reads: No Divine, I imagine, would recommend any Thing in his Sacred
Function, but what might be repeated there, without Offence to Decency
and Morality, at least, or but what is even capable of inculcating in
our Minds the Doctrine there deliver'd. That I think _Pamela_ is
deficient in both is the Occasion of this Address to You, and Subject of
the following Epistle to the Editor, which I submit to Your Judgment; if
I am mistaken in my Censures I shall as readily retract them, as I hope
all those who have applauded it for the most perfect Pattern of Virtue
and Instruction, will their superabundant Praises, when they find the
Passages I have cited rather deserve Expulsion. I am,
_SIR_,
_Your Humble Servant_,
[Illustration]
Pamela _Censured_, &c.
_SIR_,
As You have pleased in Your _Third_ Edition of _Pamela_, or (what you
call) _Virtue Rewarded_, to insert Extracts from several curious
recommendatory Letters, to perswade us that nothing could every equal
this Performance, I hope as I dissent from those Gentlemens Opinion, you
will with Impartiality receive my Reasons for so doing; nor condemn me
less for _honestly disapproving_, than you caress them for _fulsomely
flattering_.
The Pompous Promise of your Title Page, the Manner in which it is
introduced, and your undertaking in a Series of familiar Letters, from
a beautiful Young Virgin to her Parents to inculcate Virtue, the very
Mention of such a Method of Instruction, has, I don't doubt induced
Numbers, as it did me, to read your _Pamela_, and by contributing to the
large Sale thereof, made the World (as is generally the Case) judge of
the Worth of it.
The _Porch_ erected with cunning Symmetry, and shining with agreeable
Colours allures us in; _Nature_, _Truth_, _Virtue_ and _Religion_; Words
that are sure to please not only the Innocent Youth, but the more
Thinking and experienced Sage, are press'd into the Service of the first
Page; and so artfully rank'd that they at once invite us to proceed and
assure us that the Production can be nothing less than a Miracle: Nay so
much are you convinc'd of it's _Worth_, so happy in the Consideration of
your own Desert, that, tacitly condemning all former Writings of the
like Kind, You assume to yourself the Merit of prescribing _Virtue_, and
cultivating both that and _Religion_ (which by the way I never knew were
distinct before) in the Minds of the YOUTH of BOTH SEXES, and that you
have the Honour of now _First_ publishing these Things to the World: Was
no Romance or Novel ever published with a Design to recommend moral
Virtue?--Is _Pamela_ the First of that Kind! No surely; as to your
Title, _La Paysanne parvenue_ now translated into _English_, a little
_French_ Novel, is something more modest, and as much calculated for the
Encouragement of Virtue. That is a plain Tale, it is recommended and
received as such but _Pamela_ is first a _Series of Letters_ from a Girl
to her Parents, which it is presumed are offered us as Originals, and
then immediately we are told it is a _Narrative_ which has it's
_Foundation_ in _Truth_, and _Nature_; now what can any Man that would
reduce this to the Language of his own Opinion and Judgment call it,
but, _a Romance form'd in Manner of a literary Correspondence founded on
a Tale which the Author had heard, and modell'd into it's present
Shape_. Allowing this, which is the modestest Construction I can put
upon it, and that it was founded upon Truth, yet several Things may and
have been added thereto: Art and Invention, have been used; and however
_true_ the _Foundation_ may have been, yet a few _Removes_ and
_Transitions_, may make it deviate into a _downright Falsehood_: In all
Additions, and what may by some be called Embellishments to the Story,
_Fancy_ must take Place and where that presides, any Gentleman who is
too much troubled with it, knows the Consequence: From thence _Imaginary
Characters_ will arise, still spreading and increasing, and the busy
Phantom will ever be pleased at shadowy Beings of it's own Formation;
yet the Substance that gave those Shadows may be founded on _Truth_;
but thus extended like the Reflections from a declining Summer Evening's
Sun, it may please _Children_ with their seeming _gigantic_ Heights,
while _Men_ acknowledge it but as the last feeble _Efforts_ of his
_Light_.
But notwithstanding all the great Things you promise us at first, of
_Truth_, _Virtue_ and _Religion_, and that your Book is intirely
_divested_ of all those Images which in _too many_ Pieces tend only to
_inflame_ the Mind, yet give me Leave to say, Sir, that I believe you
will find but few of the many Pieces which you so self-assumingly
condemn that abound with more Instances of _inflaming_ Sentiments than
your own, as in the Course of this Epistle, I shall point out to you.
Nor does the Process of your Work fall short of your first setting out;
you there as an _Editor_ arrogate to yourself all the Praise that the
most lavish could bestow on your Desert, had it been real and silent;
_Fame_ founded by a Stranger's Breath, comes tuneful to the Ear, but
self-blown grows harsh and dissonant, and we condemn, the Conceitedness
and Affectation of what we might otherwise esteem.
And here give me Leave to observe, Sir, that tho' your great Modesty for
some particular Reasons, one of which appears to be, that you could not
otherwise be acquitted of intolerable Vanity in applauding yourself as
you have done, has induced you to stile yourself only _Editor_; yet,
Sir, from several Sentences undesignedly dropt, where the Current of
your own agreeable Flattery has carried you beyond your Depth, I can't
help thinking that you are more than barely _Editor_. The Story may have
it's _Foundation_ in _Truth_ and _Nature_; but the Superstructure is
_your own_; the fictitious _Pamela_ may bear the Resemblance of some
happy rural Maid, who for her Virtue and Beauty may have been raised
from the _Plain_ to the _Toilette_, from the _Sheepcote_ to the _Mansion
House_, but the _natural Air_, the _dignified Simplicity_, the _measur'd
Fulness_ in it are properly to be ascribed to you: I shall therefore
henceforward treat you as HALF-EDITOR, HALF-AUTHOR of _Pamela_. I am not
ignorant what Art and Industry have been employed, privately to intimate
that what gave Rise to this _inimitable_ and so much commended Piece,
was an Occurrence of the like Kind that happen'd some time since in the
Family of a certain _Noble Lord_; if this be the Case, I must confess
'tis so highly _shadow'd_ that the Outlines of your Draughts are almost
obscured, and suffer us only to guess at the Likeness. Nor can I help
joining with one of your complemental Friends, and acknowledge, that
your Picture in _resembling Life outglows it_.
First then, as _Editor_, you launch forth into all the extravagant
Praises that ever could enter the Heart of a young Author, before his
first favourite Performance was condemn'd by the Public. In this
Disguise you take a full Aim, and by presenting your Readers with a
_Prologue_ to your own _Praise_, you would _prepossess_ them with
_Applause_, and fondly _surfeit_ on the _Eccho_. The many Eulogia in
your Preface stated with Ifs, and artfully in the Conclusion bestowed on
_Pamela_ are but an Abstract of what fulsome Praises an Author wou'd
privately entertain himself with, or indeed look like what the
Booksellers are very often forced to say to make a bad Copy go off.
However they may tickle the Ears, they can never charm the Sense, and in
plain English may be render'd thus:
"_I the Editor_ tell you and command you to believe, that
this Book, called _Pamela_, will _divert_, _entertain_,
_instruct_, and _improve_ the _Youth of both Sexes_.
"It is the best System of _Religion_ and _Morality_ extant,
_delightful_ and _profitable_ to the _younger Class_ of
Readers, as well as those of _maturer Years_ and
Understanding.
"All the _social Duties_ in high and low Life, are set forth
in the most exemplary Lights. _Vice_ is made _odious_,
_Virtue_ truely _lovely_; the Characters _justly_ drawn, and
_equally_ supported; the _Man_ of _Fortune_, _Passion_, or
_Intrigue_ rightly instructed; practical _Examples_ given to
the Ladies in the most critical and affecting Cases, either
of _Virgin_, _Bride_, or _Wife_: These represented in so
_lively_ a Manner, that the Passions of every _sensible_
Reader must be affected; and his that are not, _I pronounce_
him a _Fool_. Yet though the Passions are so much touched,
there is not a _single Idea_ throughout the _Whole_ that
shall shock the _exactest Purity_, nor shall a Lady be put
to the Blush, even where she may very naturally expect it.
"Besides all this, believe me, Sirs, 'tis every Word _true_;
nor do I at all doubt the Success of the Sale; because I
confidently _assert_, that all the _desireable Ends_ are
_obtained in these Sheets_; and if any one should dispute
it, I will convince him by two incontestable Proofs. First,
that I know from MY OWN Passions, that I never perused these
engaging Scenes without being uncommonly _moved_: And, for
that Reason, I insist upon it, that every Man who reads them
must be the same: And next, that I, as an _Editor_, judge
with more Impartiality than an _Author_ can do."
What Vanity is this! Did it ever appear more conspicuous in the Writings
of any one? The worthy Gentleman who is appointed to preside over the
_British_ Muses, hath been frequently accused of being a perfect Master
in this Art; nay, so far indeed does it extenuate the Crime, that he
acknowledges the Foible. He has long been allowed to reign sole Monarch
of the Realms of _Effrontery_ and _Vanity_; but in you, Sir, let him
dread a formidable _Rival_.
The positively pronouncing a Thing quite perfect, and the only good one
of its Kind upon your meer _ipse Dixi_, is something so novel, and
tacitly calling all Fools who shall dare to swerve from that Opinion,
gives it such an Air of Consequence and assur'd Success, as may prevail
on many, who search no farther than the Surface to believe it to _be_
what it is _represented_; but to Persons who may be as _sensible_, tho'
perhaps not so bigotted to an Opinion, as the Editor, it must only
afford Matter for Laughter and Ridicule.
If it is not ludicrous, (tho' what can be too light a Counterpoise for
such frothy Affectation!) I once met with a Story from an honest Country
Man, which seems very applicable to the Case in Question. A Doctor, says
the Farmer, once did us the Honour of a Visit at our Village, he
appeared in all the Ornament of Dress necessary to excite Curiosity in
simple unmeaning Clowns, he began his Harangue, by inveighing bitterly
against the Errors and Tricks of his Brother Practitioners, their Advice
was deficient, their Drugs unwholsome, and instead of healing, they did
but taint the Body; he only prescribed what was proper, and his Arcanum
was the grand Restorative of Health then _first published_, with a
salutary Design of confirming the whole Country's Health to the utter
Ruin of all Physicians, Apothecaries, _&c._ Name what Disease you would,
his little Pill was an immediate and sovereign Remedy. During the
Doctor's Oration there appear'd behind him a surly Sort of a Fellow,
dress'd in all the Accoutrements that could be collected together to
make him look terrible, yet through all, you might discern a sly leering
Grin: No sooner had the Doctor pronounced his Nostrum universal, but
_Andrew_ (for he, it seems, was the formidable Hero in Disguise)
advancing forward with an Air military flourishes his broad Sword over
his Head; and being mildly ask'd by the Doctor, what was the Occasion
of that tremendous Visage, he boldly answered----_to Kill any one that
dare dispute it_.
Thus you, Sir, as _Editor_ stand boldly a _Swiss_ at your own Portal, to
invite in your Friends with recommendatory Letters, and hard strain'd
complemental Rhimes to yourself as _Author_, to usher your doughty
Performance into the World.
I shall pass over them in a cursory Manner, as they only appear to be
_Aiders_ and _Abetters_, and not principally concerned; they only tend
to sound forth the Praise of the Book, and amount to little more than
what the Vulgar call a _Puff_. The first of them insinuates a _French
Translation_, and as I see one is since advertised to be published, it
may not be amiss to congratulate the Gentleman, whoever he is, on his
lucky Thought, and wish him as much Success on his being _Translator_,
as you have met with in being _Editor_; tho' upon Consideration I must
confess that would be doing wrong, for as I think the Book to have a bad
Tendency in general, (which I shall endeavour to prove presently) to
transmit it into another Language is but spreading the Infection
farther.
The next Epistle abounds with the same fulsome Flattery as the former,
it is there--"full of Instruction and Morality,--a pure clear Fountain
of Truth and Innocence;--a Magazine of Virtue and unblemish'd
Thoughts:--ALL others tend only to corrupt our Principles and mislead
our Judgments, but _Pamela_ must be for the universal Benefit of
Mankind, 'twill reclaim the Vicious, and mend the Age in general."
The Introduction to the Second Edition is only calculated to load us
with still more Stuff of the same Kind as the former; You would do well,
Sir, before you so confidently affirm the Gentleman who hath given his
Opinion upon the Objections that have been offered to be a Person of
_distinguish'd Taste_ and _Abilities_, either to have let us known _who_
he was, or some of his former Works, which might have convinced us of
those _Abilities_, for I think the long Harangue prefix'd to _Pamela_
will never be deem'd a sufficient Proof thereof----The Gentleman himself
acknowledges that _when it has dwelt all Day long upon the Ear, it takes
Possession all night of the Fancy_; That is, I suppose, it contributes
to make his _Dreams_ something pleasanter than usual; and I am sorry if
I am mistaken, but it seems to me, that he wrote his Dissertation half
awake and half asleep, just as he was disturb'd from one of those
agreeable Reveries----His Return from his Walk in the Snow and the
Reflection there made, is far from holding good, if it shall appear that
the Author of _Pamela_, instead of being Father to _Millions of Minds_,
serves only to inspire them with Thoughts and Ideas, which must
infallibly make the Mind subservient to the Body, and Reason not only
fall a Victim to, but, quite debauch'd, assist the sensual Appetites.
The Objections pretended to be made by an anonymous Gentleman were in my
Opinion only formed on Purpose for the Sake of the Answers; so passing
over them:--_Parson_ Williams's _Dove_ without serpentine Mixture; the
natural Story of the little Boy, for which Sort of Admirers _Pamela_
seems to be more immediately calculated, &c. I come to the Objection the
Gentleman makes himself, which I cant think would be sufficiently
_obviated_ by any _Alteration_ in the _Front of another Edition_, while
the same is retained in the very Body of the Story; his Objection take
in his own Words.
"There are Mothers or Grandmothers (saith he) in all Families of
affluent Fortune who tho' they may have none of _Lady Davers's
Insolence_, will be apt to feel one of her _Fears_--That the Example of
a Gentleman so amiable as Mr. _B----_ may be follow'd by the _Jackies_
their Sons, with too blind and unreflecting a Readiness; nor does the
Answer of that Gentleman to his Sister's Reproach come quite up to the
Point they will rest on: For though indeed it is true, all the World
would acquit the best Gentleman in it, if he married such a Waiting Maid
as _Pamela_, yet there is an ill discerning Partiality in Passion that
will overthrow all the Force of that Argument: _Because every beloved
Maid would be a Pamela_, in a Judgment obscured by her Influence."