Chapter I: Part 1

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.

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_,

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."

Nor can I think he has stated his own Objection as strong as it might be, or even sufficiently answer'd it as it is, for where he recommends "the purpos'd Excitement of Persons in _Pamela's_ Condition of Life, by an Emulation of her Sweetness, Humility, Modesty, Patience and Industry to attain some faint Hope of arriving in Time within View of her Happiness?----What a delightful Reformation, says he, should we see in all Families, where the Vanity of their Maids took no Turn toward Ambition to please, but by such innocent Pleasures as _Pamelia's_."

This is first of all making an Objection, then denying it to be one; for what does he defend in the last Paragraph, but the very Thing that is allowed to be the general bad Tendency of the Book, _viz_: That every Maid Servant from what low Stock soever she sprung, if she is pretty modest, _&c._ has an undoubted Right to attempt to entice her Master to Marriage:----Nay in what he allows is proposed to teach the _Gay World_ and the _Fortunate_, he more particularly acknowledges it to be this.----"By Comparison with that infinite Remoteness of her Condition from the Reward which her Virtue procured her, one great Proof is derived, (_which_, says he expressly; _is Part of the Moral of Pamela_) that Advantages from _Birth_, and Distinction of _Fortune_ have no Power at all, when consider'd against those of _Behaviour_ and Temper of Mind: Because where the _last_ are not added, all the _first_ will be boasted in Vain. Whereas she who possesses the last, finds _no Want_ of the first in her Influence."----If this is proper Instructions for young Ladies I am deceived, for by the same Rule that it may hold good with _Servant Maids_ in regard to their obtaining their _Young Masters_ (which he would call as above----_the Reward their Virtue procured them._). It must equally make the Ladies conclude that if they can find any thing mere deserving in their _Footmen_ than the _Young Gentlemen_, who by a suitable Rank and Fortune are designed to be their Suitors, they are under no Obligation to chuse the latter, but _are meritoriously_ throwing down all Distinction of _Family_ and taking up with the former.

Thus much, Sir, I have thought proper to observe in regard to your Assistants; now give me Leave to say, that I think your _Pamela_ so far from being a proper Entertainment for the Youth of both Sexes, especially the young Ladies, that it is indisputable no young Girl however innocent she may be; at the Age when Nature softens and moulds the tender yielding Heart to Love can possibly read several Passages in it, which I shall point out, without conceiving Ideas she otherwise might never have dream'd of; and instead of recommending it to my Daughters I would keep it from their Sight, as too pernicious for them to converse with.

But before I enter into any particular Parts, I will take a short Summary of the whole Tale as you would willingly have it represented, with my Objections thereto, and wherein I think you fall short of what you have promised in your Title Page, and is directly the Reverse of the Encomiums bestow'd in your Preface.

The Foundation of _Pamela_'s Story is _Truth_ and _Nature_ as you have laid it down at first, pursuant to this you would have represented to us, in the Characters you have drawn, a Young Girl born of honest but mean Parents, who by some Means or other had procured for their only surviving Child a Place in a Lady of Fashion's Family, where her Education and growing Beauty just at her blooming Age, by the Death of her old Lady, left her a warm Temptation to a succeeding Heir, who had joined all the Prejudices of modern polite Education to the insulting Affluence of Fortune; he accordingly among his deceased Mother's Treasure finds this beauteous Virgin, and thinking that his Fortune might or juvenile Gaiety attract her an easy devoted Prey to his amorous Inclinations, he tries all Arts to seduce her thereto, but finding them all ineffectual, he at last flies even to Threats and Anger to force her to gratify a then raging brutal Passion which became too fierce to be endured, and too predominant to be stifled or overcome, and in order to bring her to Compliance, he is guilty of the basest Treachery and Perfidiousness; for instead of letting her return in Safety to her Father and Mother as he had promised her, and which more speciously to make her believe, he complements her with his own Chariot to carry her, but at the same Time gives private Orders to his Servants to convey her far from the Place she desires to go to, there to be immur'd like a Prisoner, and all this in Hopes of forcing her into Compliance. There commited to the safe Custody of a _Swiss_, and one that is nothing better than an _old Bawd_; there a thousand Difficulties surround her, the poor artless Maid still unacquainted with Love, and all it's little Artifices, here lights of a Minister, who professing a Value and Esteem For her, undertakes at the Hazard and Expence of his own Welfare and Subsistence to engage in her Cause and procure her Liberty; but meeting with a severe Disappointment even to his then seeming utter Ruin, the Design proves abortive, and the poor Girl is still left to further and terrible Trials of her Chastity; 'till at last overcomeing all, she captivates her Tyrant, binds him in _soft Fetters of Love_, when he only means to enslave her in _Chains of Lust_. Thus by a quick Transition from a Servant Maid, she becomes the lawful Mistress of the Dwelling she so lately waited in; and is supposed to give as excellent Example as a _Wife_, as she gave of _Chastity_ as a Maid. And _thus is Virtue Rewarded_.

The most sanguine of your Admirers could not, I fancy, more inpartially state the Case, as it has been represented by them in your Behalf. Now let us examine what is the Opinion of as many on the other Side. Their first great Charge, is, that in the narrative Part of her Letters, you have interspersed too many Scenes that directly tend to inflame the Minds of Youth: Next, that _Pamela_ instead of being artless and innocent sets out at first with as much Knowledge of the Arts of the Town, as if she had been born and bred in _Covent_ Garden, all her Life Time; that your fine Gentleman does not come up to the Character you would fain have him be thought to assume, that his Sister Lady _Davers_, is little better than a downright _Billingsgate_, and her poor Lord is the only one who meets with Pity. That Mrs. _Jewkes_ might take _Colbrand_ with her and set up in a House somewhere in the Purlieus of _St. Giles_, while honest Mother _Jervis_ might marry _Jonathan_, and perhaps be promoted to a little Inn of Squire _B_'s in the Country, even that Mrs. _Pamela_ stopp'd at in her Journey to the _Lincolnshire_ Estate. Thus, Sir, do many enter into Conversation with the Character of Men of Taste and Pleasantry, find Fault in Opposition to the exuberant Praises bestow'd on _Pamela_ by others.