Pamela's Marriage to the Rake in Samuel Richardson's Pamela

We briefly discussed Pamela’s outspoken personality in class. For a servant girl of her social class, she is indeed opinionated and vocal about her opinions.  Pamela worries about protecting her virtue and so denies Mr. B’s attempts at her. I enjoy that Pamela speaks for herself and puts the rake in his place! She questions how she became Mr. B’s property and refuses to bet taken as property (126). In Volume I, Pamela is not a passive female, but a rebellious one. In Volume II, however, things change. Pamela gets married and it is this maneuver by Richardson that I would like to discuss.

For women, marriage became a tool for economic security.  Pamela brings no wealth to her family unless she marries well. . For lower class women, their virtue was their way to get to a higher station.  Pamela remains virtuous and is thus rewarded with money. This brings me back to my point in class about virtue being economical. Pamela knows her virginity is worth something. Does her marriage to Mr. B render Pamela passive? Does it work against trying to uphold what seemed like female rebellion against male power? What has allowed her to put her guard down?

All throughout Volume I, Mr. B has tried to control Pamela, physically and mentally. He tries to rape her, and he even intercepts her letters and tries to control her pen. There exists this tension between Pamela fighting and avoiding Mr. B and yet wondering why she can’t hate her “master”! She begins her letters by referring to Mr. B as someone who “look’d like an Angel” (18). Later, even after his horrid attempts at her, she is “rejoicing for his Safety” (179). And even after he wants her to be his mistress, she says, “Why can’t I hate him?” and refers to him as a “handsome fine Gentleman” (196).  

So, what has allowed Pamela to put her guard down? Should we be angry that she married the rake? Pamela is very clear about her agitations with Mr. B and how she feels so unhappy in her position. Yet, after her terrible experiences and Mr. B’s proposal to her to be his mistress, Pamela’s language changes and she describes Mr. B’s mannerism as “something so noble, and so sincere” (214). That is aristocratic language! Is Pamela’s virtue taking her to a higher station, and is this what middle class women should aim for? Is Richardson saying that virtue is purely economical?

After Mr. B’s marriage proposal, he even confines her to the house and forbids her sending any letters or receiving any. What is her reply? “I will give Mrs. Jewkes no Trouble, Sir, said I, and will keep pretty much in my Chamber…to shew you I will obey in everything I can” (222).  Does she have other reasons for this passiveness than to go home and see her parents? Is she letting her guard down because she could be a wife and legally married? Later on, when Mr. B is letting Pamela go away “scot-free,” Pamela questions herself at wanting to leave the house and says, “I think I was loth to leave the House. Can you believe it? – What could be the Matter with me, I wonder?” (244).

            Has Mr. B’s marriage proposal “tamed” Pamela? Is she concealing her love for him to appear virtuous in her letters? Perhaps she has loved him all along but was smart enough to know that if she wants a proper marriage, she must remain virtuous and that in the end, her virtue will be rewarded. And so it was.