Shifting Virtues in Samuel Richardson's Pamela

I would like to start off by drawing similarities between the title to Samuel Richardson’s Pamela and Daniel Defoe’s Robinson Crusoe. We discussed how 18^th century novels are meant to be instructive. Pamela is very clear about this in its title. The title reads Pamela: or Virtue Rewarded. Thus, readers are told that in this novel, virtuous people are rewarded. This novel teaches you that to be rewarded, you must be good and virtuous. Moreover, as the title reads, Pamela was written, “In order to cultivate the Principles of Virtue and Religion in the Minds of the Youth of Both Sexes.” This is basically a conduct book! It is meant to teach morals and religion to youths.  Similar to the preface in Defoe’s Robinson Crusoe, the title to Richardson’s Pamela also indicates that it will instruct readers on how to behave morally.

In the 18^th century, women had little authority, and the novel was even seen as a threat to young women. At the center of Samuel Richardson’s Pamela, however, is a working class female; this had to have been rebellious at the time! I believe Pamela is more so targeted towards women and how they should behave. A concern at the time might have been about women leaving their families to make a living serving the upper class. For lower class women, virtue was their way to a higher station. Thus, virtue in Pamela is rewarded, and we know that Pamela in the end is rewarded with money. I wonder if this may have been cringe worthy to some at the time. The idea of being virtuous for economic reasons may have been seen as immoral. However, I would think this is an aristocratic point of view, considering they were born privileged. Pamela remains virtuous, denying Mr. B’s attempts at her, and she is thus rewarded for her morality. Basically, a woman’s virtue is attached to her hymen. But in avoiding becoming a sexual object, does Pamela become a sexual object because she knows her virtue is worth something? Her virtue is so strong that she even transforms aristocratic masculinity. The rake (Mr. B) is reformed and actually gets married! Thus, the middle class has the power to change the corrupt upper class. This is a change from 17^th century ideology.

The epistles in Pamela allow for autonomy of self. For a servant girl before marriage, Pamela actually speaks for herself.  She asks herself “how cam I to be his Property? What Right has he in me, but such a Thief may plead to stolen Goods?...This is downright Rebellion, I protest!” (126).  Pamela realizes her body is not someone else’s property, and that she can control her identity through her writing. She is rebelling against standards placed against her sex. Pamela writes herself, she’s in control of how she is represented and is thus asserting her right to define herself. Mr. B, however, wants to control Pamela and censor her writing. He tries to intercept her letters and chases her letters as though they were her body! I wonder though if Pamela is less worried about her body/sexuality, and more worried about Mr. B seeing her letters because they are representative of her mind and thus, her identity.  She claims, “The very things that I most dreaded his seeing or knowing, the Contents of my Papers…” (309).  It sometimes seems that Mr. B is more interested in controlling Pamela’s mind than her body. Is this representative of a shifting patriarchal society that is now more interested in policing a woman’s mind? Is Pamela’s virtue attached to her letters?