Henry Fielding Shamela Essay - Critical Essays - eNotes.com Henry Fielding Shamela Essay - Critical Essays Navigate Study Guiderows link Link Shamela Henry Fielding The following entry presents criticism of Fielding's epistolary novel An Apology for the Life of Mrs. Shamela Andrews (1741). See also, Henry Fielding Criticism. Hailed by Sheridan Barker as the “best parody in English literature,” Henry Fielding's Shamela is the best known of a number of novels written in the 1740s that satirized Samuel Richardson's hugely popular 1740 novel, Pamela. Fielding's sixty-page book condenses and imitates Richardson's two-volume epistolary novel, poking fun at the original work's narrative method and pretense at moralizing. The heroine of Pamela is a paragon of virtue, a servant girl who resists the sexual advances of her master, and Richardson's purpose with the novel was to “cultivate the Principles of Virtue and Religion in the Minds of the Youth of Both Sexes.” Fielding's heroine Shamela, on the other hand, is an artful minx who uses her “Vartue” to rise in the world.

By poking fun at every aspect of Richardson's method and message, Fielding exposes the hypocrisy of contemporary mores. The work is more than a simple parody of Richardson, however, as Fielding lampoons political figures, the clergy, and contemporary writers. Shamela also marked a turning point in the modern novel, as it prepared the way for Fielding's more complex and ambitious work, Joseph Andrews (1742), which launched the tradition of comic fiction in English literature. Biographical Information Although Fielding had published a number of plays, poems, and essays by 1741, he was struggling financially. His theatrical career had come to an end in 1737 because of the controversy stirred up by his dramatic satires, and that year he began preparing to qualify as a barrister in order to support his family. He also took on translation work and in 1739 launched a newspaper, the Champion, for which he wrote a number of essays that satirized politics, law, literature, religion, and government. As he inveighed against all manner of societal excesses and corruption in the Champion, Fielding was in fact preparing himself for the pointed satire that was to come in Shamela.

In 1740, three books appeared that particularly irked Fielding. In addition to Richardson's Pamela, there was An Apology for the Life of Colley Cibber, a book full of grammatical mistakes and misused words, and Conyers Middleton's Life of Cicero, which was obsequiously dedicated to Prime Minister Robert Walpole's Privy Seal, Lord Hervey. Shamela satirizes all three of these works by imitating their content and style. In early 1741 when Fielding found himself in a “sponging house” because of his debts, he dashed off the manuscript of Shamela, which he published anonymously. Richardson suspected that Fielding was the author of the parody, and never forgave him. A year later Fielding would publish Joseph Andrews, which inaugurated his career as a novelist. Plot and Major Characters Fielding takes special care to parody even the smallest details of Richardson's work, and the form of Shamela closely follows that of Pamela.

The novel is introduced by the “author,” one Conny Keyber (a combination of the names of the writers Conyers Middleton and Colley Cibber), who claims he presents the “authentick Papers” of the heroine of Richardson's novel. Keyber dedicates his work to “Miss Fanny,” a parody of Middleton's dedication to the supposedly effeminate Lord Hervey. He also includes letters to the editor (including one from the editor himself) congratulating him on his fine work, just as Richardson had appended letters in praise of his novel to his second edition of Pamela. The novel begins with a letter from the gullible Parson Thomas Tickletext, who, overcome by the loveliness of Pamela, writes to his friend, Parson J. Oliver, enthusiastically recommending the novel. Oliver, however, has in his possession certain letters that reveal the true nature and history of Richardson's heroine. Oliver explains that Pamela's name is actually Shamela and transmits her authentic correspondence.

There follows a series of letters written between the various characters in the novel: Shamela; her unwed mother, Henrietta Maria Honora Andrews; Squire Booby, the master of Booby Hall; Booby's housekeeper and Shamela's confidante, Mrs. Lucretia Jervis; Booby's more loyal housekeeper, Mrs. Jewkes; and the Reverend Arthur Williams. The letters reveal that Shamela, formerly a servant in Booby's household, becomes his wife by supposedly resisting his attempts to seduce her and flaunting her “Vartue.” She has done this with the help of Mrs. Jervis, who pretends to help Booby to win Shamela but who actually aids Shamela in her designs on his worldly goods. In the meantime Shamela has an affair with Reverend Williams, which according to Parson Oliver, is eventually found out. Events and characters in the novel parallel Pamela, but things are seen in a very different light, with Parson Williams appearing as a scheming rogue, Mr. Booby as a fool, and Pamela as a calculating hussy.

Major Themes As a parody of Pamela, Shamela aims to overturn what Fielding considered to be the sententious moralizing of Richardson's novel. Richardson claims that Pamela is a model of virtue, whose chastity is rewarded, but Fielding in his novel equates morality with expediency, as Shamela behaves as she does in order to secure material comforts for herself. Throughout the novel Shamela uses words such as “feign,” “act,” and “pretend.” She tempts Booby but pretends to do so unwittingly, thus retaining her virtuous image, resisting him in order to appear virtuous and lure him into marriage and elevate herself socially. Shamela is not the virtuous woman Richardson supposes but rather a calculating, conniving creature. While Fielding parodies Richardson's views on morality and virtue, at the same time he presents his own moral message about hypocrisy and feigned goodness. His criticism of hypocrisy extends also to the clergy (represented by Parson Williams), the gentry (in Squire Booby), and the political establishment. The theme of faith versus good works is also explored in the character of the parson.

Fielding with his novel attacks corruption on many levels, from the perversion of language to the exploitation of the nature of decency and uprightness for political purposes. Critical Reception Fielding published Shamela anonymously, but upon its publication he was widely suspected as being the author of the parody. Because of the enormous success of Pamela, Fielding's burlesque enjoyed considerable notoriety, and indeed it spawned several other, lesser satires of Richardson's novel. Shamela was hardly a critical success upon initial publication, however, and it was not only until the early twentieth century that scholars began taking it seriously as a work of literature. Early discussions of the novel centered on its authorship, and it was not until the 1950s that Fielding's authorship of Shamela was established. Subsequent analyses have explored issues such as the nature of Fielding's parody; the work's complex, multi-layered satire of contemporary values and politics; the similarities and differences between Shamela and Pamela; the anticipation in the novel of themes elaborated upon in Joseph Andrews; the satire's concern with sexuality, gender, literacy, and class; the idea of authenticity; and Fielding's political attitudes.

More Content: Shamela, Henry Fielding (hide) Shamela | novel by Fielding | Britannica.com novel by Fielding Alternative Title: “An Apology for the Life of Mrs. Shamela Andrews” Similar Topics The Hobbit Shamela, in full An Apology for the Life of Mrs. Shamela Andrews, novel by Henry Fielding , published under the pseudonym Conny Keyber in 1741. In this parody of Samuel Richardson ’s epistolary novel Pamela , Fielding transforms Richardson’s virtuous servant girl into a predatory fortune hunter who cold-bloodedly lures her lustful wealthy master into matrimony. It was the first of several books to burlesque the sentimental prudery of the immensely popular Pamela. Learn More in these related articles: Samuel Richardson Aug. 19, 1689 Mackworth, near Derby, Derbyshire, Eng. July 4, 1761 Parson’s Green, near London English novelist who expanded the dramatic possibilities of the novel by his invention and use of the letter form (“ epistolary novel ”). His major novels were Pamela (1740) and...

epistolary novel a novel told through the medium of letters written by one or more of the characters. Originating with Samuel Richardson’s Pamela; or, Virtue Rewarded (1740), the story of a servant girl’s victorious struggle against her master’s attempts to seduce her, it was one of the... 4 References found in Britannica Articles Assorted References influence on Richardson (in Samuel Richardson ) parody of epistolary novel (in epistolary novel ) External Links Corrections? Updates? Help us improve this article! Contact our editors with your feedback. MEDIA FOR: You have successfully emailed this. Error when sending the email. Try again later. Edit Mode Submit Tips For Editing We welcome suggested improvements to any of our articles. You can make it easier for us to review and, hopefully, publish your contribution by keeping a few points in mind. Encyclopædia Britannica articles are written in a neutral objective tone for a general audience. You may find it helpful to search within the site to see how similar or related subjects are covered. Any text you add should be original, not copied from other sources. At the bottom of the article, feel free to list any sources that support your changes, so that we can fully understand their context.

(Internet URLs are the best.) Your contribution may be further edited by our staff, and its publication is subject to our final approval. Unfortunately, our editorial approach may not be able to accommodate all contributions. Submit Thank You for Your Contribution! Our editors will review what you've submitted, and if it meets our criteria, we'll add it to the article. Please note that our editors may make some formatting changes or correct spelling or grammatical errors, and may also contact you if any clarifications are needed. Uh Oh There was a problem with your submission. Please try again later. Close Date Published: July 08, 2014 URL: Access Date: January 20, 2017 Share Joseph Andrews Henry Fielding and Samuel Richardson | GradeSaver Joseph Andrews Henry Fielding and Samuel Richardson Buy Study Guide The Richardson-Fielding contrast has been around since the novelists were alive, and literary criticism has always had difficulty talking about either novelist without comparing him to the other, whether explicitly or implicitly.

The opposition is a natural one, not least because of Richardson’s role in launching Fielding’s career: the latter wrote Shamela (1741), his first sustained attempt at fiction, as a satirical response to Richardson’s controversial Pamela (1740), and his longer and more serious Joseph Andrews (1742) likewise draws on Richardson’s novel for an equivocal sort of inspiration. The precise nature of that inspiration is worth examining, for while Shamela is a straightforward travesty of Pamela, Joseph Andrews is something more complex, and its relation to Pamela is something other than the relation of parody to original. Pamela was one of the great popular phenomena of British literary history. It is the story of a teenage servant-girl, Pamela Andrews , who withstands the unwanted attentions of her Master, the lecherous squire Mr. B., and maintains her purity against long odds. Near the midpoint of the novel Mr. B. recognizes her moral worth, reforms himself, and marries her; the second half of the story concerns Pamela’s triumphant acclimation to her new exalted condition, her conquering of the snobbish upper class by the sheer force of her goodness.

The entire novel comprises a series of letters and journal entries, a few of which (near the beginning) are written by other characters but the vast majority of which are the work of Pamela herself; this epistolary format is part of the Richardson’s revolutionary contribution to the development of the novel in English, for the first-person narration of events, in nearly real-time, allows the novelist to explore, quite naturalistically, the depths and nuances of Pamela’s psyche. Part of Fielding’s revulsion from Richardson’s creation may have been owing to this method of characterization, so different from his own and perhaps bringing the reader in too close for comfort. Thus, the great essayist Samuel Johnson distinguished Fielding from Richardson in this manner: “There is all the difference in the world between characters of nature and characters of manners; and there is the difference between the characters of Fielding and those of Richardson.

Characters of manners are very entertaining; but they are to be understood by a more superficial observer than characters of nature, where a man must dive into the recesses of the human heart.” In this respect, at least, Richardson was on the cutting edge where Fielding was not, as the distinctive province of the novel in the modern age would turn out to be the lavish delineation of individual subjectivity. Pamela was also modern in being the first true best-seller. Richardson and his associates in the London publishing trade prepared the way for its debut with a P.R. campaign involving newspaper advertisements and celebrity endorsements. The pre-release hype tended to emphasize the moral utility of the novel and the laudable example that its virtuous heroine set for young ladies, and indeed upon its publication the novel received accolades from clergymen and other professional moralists in addition to literary types and the general public. The wholesomeness of Richardson’s moral message and the value of his aesthetic achievement were not evident to all observers, however, as a contingent of vocal detractors soon developed, some of whom vented their disgust in literary parodies. One such was Fielding, whose first contribution to Anti-Pamela literature was the bawdy Shamela.

The criticisms that inform Fielding’s parody are typical of the Anti-Pamela sentiment of the day, and many readers find that they remain compelling. One major problem, for Fielding and those who agree with him, arises from an unintended consequence of Richardson’s narrative method: Pamela’s authorship of virtually all the documents that make up the novel means that all information must come through her, with two unfortunate implications for her characterization. The fact that Richardson also needs Pamela to report other characters’ constant praises of her gives an impression of vanity -- and of hypocrisy as well, given Pamela’s many “humble” claims that she is unworthy of such praise. Pamela thus seems guilty of both of Fielding’s types of affectation. Worse, since the action of the novel revolves entirely around the possibility of sex, Pamela’s writing can make her appear to be sex-obsessed; this impression in turn makes her insistent protestations of virtue seem dubious. Indeed, in Fielding’s opinion Pamela was never sincere in her rejections of Mr. B.’s advances but was simply being strategic.

Richardson’s subtitle provides the clue: “Virtue Rewarded.” Is virtue, specifically female sexual virtue, its own reward, as the saying goes, or does it meet with some other, more tangible reward? In other words, is Pamela’s pursuit of virtue self-interested (and thereby hypocritical)? Given the plot of the novel, in which Richardson rewards his heroine with a socially elevating marriage, the pursuit of virtue for material gain might indeed seem a rational enterprise. On this theory, Pamela resists Mr. B. at first in order to maximize the rewards when she capitulates later; she is acting on the insight behind the vulgar expression, “Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?” In stressing that female chastity precedes marriage, Richardson meant to recommend virtue for its own sake; in the opinion of Fielding and some others, however, the novel that many moralists extolled as a positive moral example to young women was in fact an instruction manual on how to use the appearance of virtue to gain social and financial advantages.

In Shamela, Fielding makes this interpretation of Pamela’s character explicit: his sham-Pamela is a hussy pretending to be a prude, affecting to detest the advances of her Master while slyly encouraging them with her “involuntary” physical responses. In a famous passage, she confesses to her correspondent, “I thought once of making a little fortune by my person. I now intend to make a great one by my virtue.” In Joseph Andrews, however, Fielding is no longer concerned with the genuineness or falsity of Pamela’s sexual morality, and what is more, the parodic motive has receded drastically in his conception of the work; what may be called the “Richardson material” occupies the first ten chapters but is marginal at best thereafter. The plot begins with a direct link to Richardson’s novel: Pamela has married Mr. B. (now “ Mr. Booby ”), and Fielding has endowed her with a brother, Joseph Andrews, who is in the service of Mr. Booby’s uncle, Sir Thomas Booby . Sir Thomas’s wife occupies a role analogous to that of Mr. B. in Pamela, as she soon sets about trying to seduce the physically charming Andrews in her employ.

Parody, however, is never the only, or even the primary, point of the encounters between Joseph and Lady Booby : though Joseph’s “priggishly self-conscious virtue” (in the words of one critic) raises laughs by transferring Pamela’s signature attributes to a strapping young man, nevertheless Joseph never becomes merely a figure of parody; he is too clearly justified in his opposition to those detestable hypocrites, Lady Booby and Mrs. Slipslop , and his pursuit of virtue has no ulterior motive. As Homer Goldberg puts it, “the prime target of the ridicule is not the footman but his mistress, a figure with no derisive implication for Richardson’s novel.” If Fielding no longer cares to impugn Pamela’s sexual virtue and accuse her of hypocrisy, then what is the point of his use of Richardson’s characters? As Brian McCrea has argued in an influential essay, Fielding’s new target is Pamela’s (and, by extension, Richardson’s) class attitudes. In an important moment, Fielding has his Pamela attempt to derail Joseph’s marriage to Fanny on classist grounds that, had they applied to her own case, would have kept her a servant-girl forever.

When reminded that Fanny’s origins are similar to her own, Pamela responds with damning smugness: “She was my Equal . . . but I am no longer Pamela Andrews, I am now this Gentleman’s Lady, and as such am above her.” This is an appalling sentiment, but in Fielding’s opinion it scarcely exaggerates the position implicit in Richardson’s novel. When Richardson’s Mr. B. stoops to marry his servant, his disregard of class boundaries may seem revolutionary; in the full half of the novel following the couple’s marriage, however, Richardson does much to mitigate what at first seemed a radical social message. Upon her marriage and elevation, says McCrea, “Pamela changes her identity”: having once looked to her beloved parents as her moral and spiritual guides, she suddenly adopts Mr. B. as her paragon and creator, describing him as “God-like” and confessing herself “entirely the work of [his] bounty.” As she seeks to comply in all things with the will of Mr. B., she finds that she is not the same person she once was; as she remarks to a servant, “times . . . are much altered with me.

I have of late been so much honored by better company, that I can’t stoop to yours.” Or, as Fielding’s Pamela would put it: “I am no longer Pamela Andrews, I am now this Gentleman’s Lady.” In becoming Mr. B.’s creature when she becomes his wife, Pamela demonstrates, against Richardson’s ostensible social and moral message, that a servant-girl cannot really become a lady, because in order to become a lady she must cease entirely to be the person she once was. Fielding perceived this contradiction in Richardson’s handling of the class theme, and Pamela’s appearance in Joseph Andrews makes explicit the covert snobbery that her original creator unwittingly bequeathed to her. Not that Fielding himself cared much about the social aspirations of servant-girls or footmen: his conclusion, in which he reveals Joseph to be a gentleman and Fanny to be higher-born than everyone had thought, implicitly aligns individual worth with genteel birth and thereby is decidedly un-egalitarian. If Fielding’s novel is not more democratic than Richardson’s, however, it is definitely more honest; in Fielding’s moral outlook, which condemns hypocrisy above everything, honesty makes all the difference.

JOSEPH ANDREWS AND SHAMELA | Murray State University JOSEPH ANDREWS AND SHAMELA $3.95 Condition: New Henry Fielding wrote both Joseph Andrews (1742) and Shamela (1741) in response to Samuel Richardson's book Pamela (1740), of which Shamela is a splendidly bawdy travesty. Joseph Andrews begins as a parody, too, but soon outgrows its origins, and its deepest roots lie in Cervantes and Marivaux. In both stories, Fielding demonstrates his concern for the corruption of contemporary society, politics, religion, morality, and taste. This revised and expanded edition follows the text of Joseph Andrews established by Martin C. Battestin for the definitive Wesleyan Edition of Fielding's works. The text of Shamela is based on the first edition, and two substantial appendices reprint the preliminary matter from the second edition of Richardson's Pamela and Conyers Middleton's Life of Cicero, which is also closely parodied in Shamela. This Oxford World's Classics edition also features a new introduction by Thomas Keymer which situates Fielding's works in their critical and historical contexts.

ISBN/SKU: Project MUSE - Pursuing Pamela, 1740–1750 Mark G. Spencer University of Toronto Thomas Keymer & Peter Sabor, eds. The 'Pamela' Controversy: Criticisms and Adaptations of Samuel Richardson's 'Pamela,' 1740-1750. London: Pickering & Chatto, 2001. Volume 1: pp. lxxi + 260; 2: l + 355; 3: pp. xxx + 349; 4: xliii + 312; 5: 335; 6: xxix + 361. $750. ISBN 1-85196-615-3 Scholars of eighteenth-century life have long been intrigued by Samuel Richardson's Pamela (1740-41) and the contemporary debate that sprang from it. Pamela's story was known to a wide reading audience in the eighteenth century.

Many were captivated by Richardson's tale of a young servant-girl who resisted the advances of her dead mistress' son, Mr. B., eventually to have virtue rewarded when she won his hand in marriage. The marvelous volumes under review, edited by Thomas Keymer and Peter Sabor, will surely spur modern interest and, even more importantly, may direct scholars towards new areas of illuminating inquiry. Building on the bibliographical research of Richard Gordon Hannaford, Bernard Kreissman, Alan Dugald McKillop, William Merritt Sale, Jr., and Sarah W. R. Smith, among others, Keymer and Sabor have assembled an extensive collection of early responses, from 1740 to 1750, to the early editions of Pamela, authorized and pirated. These volumes display wonderfully that the Pamela vogue was not confined to only a few main sources.

Indeed, the editors take their readers on a journey that, going far [End Page 96] beyond the seemingly principal texts, encompasses pre-publication puffs of Pamela (some in the form of published letters), as well as a whole host of poems (some even printed on ladies'fans), reviews, plays, operas, burlesques, paintings, engravings, wax-work shows, and prose continuations of Pamela's story by Richardson and his competitors. Sizing up this extensive body of writing and images, the editors argue it is best described as a "controversy." The received interpretation (traceable to 1744) of a two-sided debate between Pamelists and Antipamelists will not do. Rather, there was "a multi-voiced dispute"(1:xvii) expressing many different views and shades of praise and criticism. "It is for this reason that so much is to be gained by recovering to view, alongside such well-known responses as Shamela, the full range of Pamela's quarrelsome progeny: in these sources we see displayed, with unrivalled clarity, the diversity, vigour and turmoil of their cultural moment" (1:xix).

Perhaps it is relevant to ask, then, what sources have been reprinted here and to what effect? Here are the contents of the six volumes, which are arranged, helpfully, according to a number of themes: 1: Richardson's editorial apparatus from the second (1741) and sixth (1742) editions of Pamela; Fielding's parody, Shamela (1741); well-known verse responses by Josiah Relph (1747) and Pamela: or, The Fair Impostor (1743); and lesser known miscellaneous poems gathered from the Gentleman's Magazine (1741 & 1745), London Magazine (1741), Scot's Magazine (1741), and Universal Spectator (1742).

2: the only known contemporary review of Pamela in English from The History of the Works of the Learned; Pamela Censured (1741); Lettre sur Pamela (1742); Charles Povey's curious book, The Virgin in Eden (1741); reproductions of paintings by Joseph Highmore, Philip Mercier, and Robert Feke, and engravings and illustrations by John Carwitham, Francis Hayman, Hubert Gravelot, Antoine Benoist, and Louis Truchy. 3: Eliza Haywood's Anti-Pamela (1741) and the anonymous Memoirs of the Life of Lady H—(1741). 4 & 5: John Kelly's Pamela's Conduct in High Life (1741), a spurious continuation of Pamela. 6: six dramatic and operatic adaptations: Henry Giffard's Pamela. A Comedy (1741); [James Dance's] Pamela; or Virtue Triumphant (1741); Joseph Dorman's, Pamela: or, Virtue Rewarded. An Opera (1742); anon., Mock-Pamela (1750); and Carlo Goldoni's Pamela.

A Comedy (1750). As the readers of this journal are likely to realize, most of these sources have been known to scholars of eighteenth-century literature. Indeed, the major works have been documented by Richardson bibliographers and biographers [End Page 97] and many are even catalogued in more general check lists of eighteenth-century fiction. They are also discussed, along with most of the minor works reproduced in these volumes, in a slim and useful book published thirty-two years ago by Bernard Kreissman, Pamela-Shamela: A Study of the Criticisms, Burlesques, Parodies, and Adaptations of Richardson's 'Pamela'. Furthermore, a number of the selections have also been reproduced previously in modern facsimile editions. As the editors point out, the Augustan Reprint Society had published three pieces—Shamela, Pamela Censured, and Richardson's introduction to the second edition of Pamela.

It should also be noted that in addition to those items, of the 1914 total pages of facsimile reproduction in Keymer and Sabor, 1438 pages (including works by Dance, Dorman, Giffard, Goldoni, Haywood, and Povey) are found in the Garland Press reprint series, Richardsoniana (1974-1975). Despite these significant overlaps—and notwithstanding the fact that Garland reproduced other texts that are not reproduced in The 'Pamela'Controversy, James Parry's The True Anti-Pamela (1741) for instance—scholars interested in the period will need to consult the excellent editorial apparatus of Keymer and Sabor. The prefatory material in volume 1 includes a general introductory essay, a useful and detailed "Chronology, 1740-1750" that traces the developing controversy step-by-step, as well as a "Select Bibliography" that lists seven pages of relevant secondary sources. Most useful of all, however, are the ably-written essays that introduce each volume.

Together these 170 pages offer richly-documented interpretations of the works being reproduced by situating them in their historical contexts. Tracing intricate borrowings, allusions, and reprintings in a masterful way, they reveal too many fascinating points to be covered here. The commentary on Pamela Censured is particularly astute (2:x-xvi) and will surely lead to further debate, as will the interpretation of Eliza Haywood's Anti-Pamela (4:vii-xxv). The footnotes to the introductions are similarly invaluable and direct readers to most of the important historiography, although Jerry C. Beasley's fine 1982 book, Novels of the 1740s, has been overlooked. Reading the introductions in conjunction with the reprinted texts, it becomes clear that Keymer and Sabor have expanded the controversy over Pamela in a number of interesting directions. Both editors have backgrounds in book history, which is used to advantage when documenting the importance of Richardson's role in the controversy not only as author/editor, but also as printer and promoter.

"It would be little exaggeration," they write, "to say that the brilliance of Pamela lay as much in commercial strategy as in literary achievement" (vol. 1, p. xv). That context is used effectively to illuminate other texts, not least of all Fielding's Shamela, a book that gave sustained attention to Richardson's promotional apparatus. Keymer and Sabor also show that debate about Pamela was by no means [End Page 98] an exclusively English event. Richardson's novel circulated in Scotland and was discussed in the Scots Magazine. The Irish made especially significant contributions to the debate, a fact that is better established with Keymer's solid attribution of Pamela: or, The Fair Impostor to an Irish writer. Irish printers amplified the controversy when they produced pirated editions of Pamela and many of its critics. The introductory essays stretch the geography of the controversy in other directions, too, tracing it from Britain to continental Europe, and especially France and Italy. Still, it would have been interesting to see the English language controversy pursued farther afield. Regrettably, these volumes and their introductions make little effort to trace the debate to American shores.

The "Chronology" notes Benjamin Franklin's 1742-43 edition of Pamela and records William Bradford's advertisements for Pamela in the Pennsylvania Gazette (16 September 1742). These facts, both of which are recorded in A. D. McKillop's Samuel Richardson: Printer and Novelist (Chapel Hill, 1936), and the existence of an early painting of "Pamela Andrews" by Robert Feke, a Rhode Island portraitist, hint that the American dimension may be worth pursing.

Many early Americans are known to have been familiar with Pamela, including Esther Edwards Burr, Jonathan Edwards, Eliza Lucas Pinckney, and Abigail Adams, who wrote that "Richardson has done more towards embellishing the present age, and teaching them the talent of letter-writing, than any other modern I can name." Adams had high praise for Richardson and was "passionately fond of all his works, even to his 'Pamela.' In the simplicity of our manners, we judge that many of his descriptions and some of his characters are beyond real life; but those, who have been conversant in these old corrupted countries, will be soon convinced that Richardson painted only the truth in his abandoned characters." Interestingly, Adams sided with Richardson when it came to the persistent controversy about whether Pamela lead its readers to virtue or vice: Richardson was master of the human heart; he studied and copied nature; he has shown the odiousness of vice, and the fatal consequences which result from the practice of it; he has painted virtue in all her amiable attitudes; he never loses sight of religion, but points his characters to a future state of restitution as the sure ground of safety to the virtuous, and excludes not hope from the wretched penitent. .

. . He must have an abandoned, wicked, and depraved heart, who can be tempted to vice by the perusal of Richardson's works. Indeed, I know not how a person can read them without being made better by them. 1 As early as 1744, Dr. Alexander Hamilton (1712-1756), attending a book auction in Boston, wrote that among the "books that sold best" were "Pamela, Anti-Pamela, [and] The Fortunate Maid." 2 It seems certain that both Pamela [End Page 99] and her controversy found their way to American shores. One wonders, how widely was Pamela discussed in the pages of early American books, pamphlets, and periodicals? Ferreting out these discussions may prove worthwhile. The content list of the volumes under review could have been expanded in other ways too. The editors remark that "it is likely" that more pieces about Pamela will yet "languish unidentified in rare existing runs of provincial journals." This reviewer would have liked to see included more of these obscure pieces and other short selections of one sort or another. The Monthly Review's assessment of Goldoni's Pamela.

A Comedy might have been reprinted, as might the Monthly'sinteresting review of Eliza Haywood's The Adventures of Miss Betsy Thoughtless. Expanding beyond 1750 would have allowed the set to include Pamela-relatedmaterial generated by A Collection of the Moral and Instructive Sentiments, Maxims, Cautions, and Reflexions, contained in the Histories of Pamela, Clarissa, and Sir Charles Grandison (1755) and The Paths of Virtue Delineated (1756), both of which were reviewed in the Monthly Review (12 [1755], p. 235, and 14 [1756], pp. 581-82) and frequently discussed in other publications. And stretching to 1761 would have allowed for the inclusion of interesting items published after Richardson's death, many of which dealt with the Pamela controversy directly, such as the " EPITAPH on the late Mr. Richardson, Author of Pamela, Sir Charles Grandison, &c," that was published in the Annual Register (4 [1761], pp. 259-60).

But chronological limits must be set somewhere, and 1750 is a reasonable choice, as it brackets most of the key texts. Most of the facsimile reproductions are of fair quality. However, as is often the case with facsimile copies of eighteenth-century texts, occasionally the originals themselves would have been somewhat difficult to read (because of broken letters, for example), especially when cheaply printed—as was much ephemeral material in the period. While always legible, to this reviewer's eyes at least, it may have been better to reset some of the texts. In fine, however, these volumes are well conceived, expertly executed, and contain remarkably few errors caused by the copy editing or printing—and are even handsomely bound. They are a pleasure to read and ought to live up to the editors' goal of encouraging more debate about the Pamela controversy. Notes 1 . Abigail Adams to Lucy Cranch (27 Aug. 1785), in Adams Family Correspondence, ed. Richard Alan Ryerson. 6 vols. (Cambridge & London: Harvard Univ., 1993), 6:213-13. 2 . See Carl Bridenbaugh, ed.

Gentleman's Process: The Itinerarium of Dr. Alexander Hamilton, 1744 (Chapel Hill: Univ. of North Carolina, 1948), p. 112. You have access to this content Free sample How Good is Richardson’s Shamela Parody? | Academic Articles How Good is Richardson’s Shamela Parody? english literature , epistolary novel , pamela , richardson , shamela Funnily enough, the excerpt from Shamela shows how much of a dramatist Fielding was. In his popular afterpiece The Virgin Unmasked (1735) he created the heroine Lucy Goodwill. Lucy is the not-quite-sixteen-year-old daughter of a rich and possessive old father who means to marry her according to his own wishes. But she, on the contrary, is guided by her own cheerful instinct for getting whatever she wants and appears in the play as an immensely engaging sort of barracuda virgin, descending from a line of innocently rapacious stage characters like Wycherley’s Margery Pinchwife and Congreve’s Miss Prue. She is entirely innocent of experience, and of disguise, but certainly not of desire.

(Lockwood, 107) When Lucy’s father asks whether she should like to have a husband, she replies as follows. LUCY: And am I to have a Coach? GOODWILL: No, no: What has that to do with a Husband? LUCY: Why you know, Papa, Sir John Wealthy’s Daughter was carry’d away in a Coach by her Husband; and I have been told by several of our Neighbours, that I was to have a Coach when I was marry’d. Indeed, I have dreamt of it a hundred times. I never dreamt of a Husband in my whole Life, that I did not dream of a Coach. I have rid about in one all Night in my Sleep, and methought it was the purest thing! GOODWILL: I tell you, Child, you must have no Coach with a Husband. LUCY: Then let me have a Coach without a Husband. GOODWILL: What, had you rather have a Coach than a Husband? LUCY: Hum–I don’t know that–But, if you’ll get me a Coach, let me alone, I’ll warrant I’ll get me a Husband.

(Cole) Then compare that to another passage from Shamela – and see how they are both the same kind of eager young ladies. O! Bless me! I shall be Mrs. Booby, and be Mistress of a great Estate, and have a dozen Coaches and Six, and a fine House at London, and another at Bath, and Servants, and Jewels, and Plate, and go to Plays, and Opera’s, and Court; and do what I will, and spend what I will. (Fielding, 26-27) A nice similarity – both women talk about coaches and Richardson’s Pamela happened to escape by carriage in the dramatic scene in which she encounters lady Davers. What is obvious is that Fielding used his earlier dramatic character Lucy to foster his Shamela. Although ridiculing and hyperbolic, both women seem to know what they want and are passionate about it. They may appear silly and over the top, but they do get what they want – so in the end the joke is not on them. Shamela vs. Pamela A very upfront and obvious way of mocking Pamela with Shamela is the Shakespearean question – what is in a name?

There is a lot in a name in this case. Pamela is the virtue itself, where Shamela is not. The name Shamela [1] lucidly suggests ‘shame’ instead of virtue. Within this name-comparison is perhaps more than it would suggests. Shamela is honest about her shame (as shows her name), she does not pursue virtue like it is the key to a proper life, whereas Pamela does. Fielding seems to suggest that Pamela should be ashamed, as he places his Shamela directly opposite of Richardson’s Pamela. The passage literally (“You see I write in present Tense,”) mocks how Richardson’s Pamela wrote passages of her letters in the present tense. As if Shamela were writing while experiencing everything – which is of course nonsense. A woman laying in bed with a man and pretending to have fainted (or even died – oh dear!) does not write a letter easily. This is a brilliantly chosen element to mock, because it is just silly. In the letters of Richardson’s Pamela she does write in present tense.

But if I can’t, I hope to make my hands as red as a blood-pudding, and as hard as a beechen trencher, to accommodate them to my condition.–But I must break off; here’s somebody coming. ‘Tis only our Hannah with a message from Mrs. Jervis.–But, hold, here’s somebody else. Well, it is only Rachel. I am as much frighted, as were the city mouse and the country mouse, in the same book of fables, at every thing that stirs. (Richardson, Letter XXIX) In this situation Pamela is seated and writing a letter, but she is disturbed by someone. A normal person writing a letter would not write down “But I must break off; here’s somebody coming.” It is perfectly useless for whomever reads the letter, because the writer (Pamela) will continue writing anyhow. Richardson uses this little trick to engage the reader more into Pamela’s story – you learn she is disturbed, which you would not learn from a proper letter. Another obvious parallel can be drawn between Pamela and Shamela.

The latter tempts her Master into her bed, luring him to her body like a true predator – closing up and punishing her victim as soon as he is close enough. It is funny, but it works like a charm at the same time. A man scratched like that will not think of doing the same quite soon – and at least he offered his humble apologies. “The Moment he saw me give Symptoms of recovering my Senses, fell down on his Knees; and O Pamela, cryed he, can you forgive me, my injured Maid?” (Fielding, 8) Shamela does what Richardson’s Pamela should have done. Pamela’s own feelings towards her Master B. are very vague and dubious (of dubious consent, even). She does not particularly like him – not after he ‘molested’ her virtue. Nevertheless, she remains with him, which may be seen as stupidity, or simply as the 18th century etiquette. To say she could have left easily enough would be to ignore the negative consequences of such an act [2] . The virtue of Pamela is how virtuous she is and her meekness and obliging nature accompany that. Pamela stays with Mr. B.

and perhaps she even suffered from Stockholm-syndrome, because she does voice her rather warm feelings for B. “He has certainly done enough to make me hate him; but yet when I heard his danger, which was very great, I could not in my heart forbear rejoicing for his safety; though his death would have set me free.” (Richardson, 218) The trap Shamela lies out for her Master may be seen in two different lights. It is either a delightfully wicked plan – that works – or she may really feel this ambiguously about him. But look at Shamela’s response to Mrs. Jervis’ suggestion: Well, says Mrs. Jervis, I never saw any thing better acted than your Part: But I wish you may not have discouraged him from any future Attempt; especially since his Passions are so cool, that you could prevent his Hands going further than your Bosom. Hang him, answer’d I, he is not quite so cold as that I assure you; our Hands, on neither side, were idle in the Scuffle, nor have left us any Doubt of each other as to that matter. (Fielding, 8) Mrs.

Jervis suggests she to ‘keep’ him, since she judges him to be easy enough to be controlled (“that you could prevent his Hands going further than your Bosom”), but Shamela has a different opinion. She knows from their ‘battle’ that his passions were not so cool and therefore she suggests she thinks the opposite of Mrs. Jervis – but it is not literally said. Sh/Pamela’s dubious two-sided feelings towards her Master are therefore mocked. Shamela calls her Master ‘Booby’ versus Pamela’s Mr. B. – the latter sounds a lot more impressive. Even to call an animal ‘Booby’ would sound derogatory in my ears. Mr. B. could of course ‘be’ Booby, which gives it a nice little twist. The exclamation of ‘Odsbobs’ is a literal mockery of the ‘Ads-bobbers’ – the irreligious who make a mockery of God. The word ‘Odsbobs’ is a mockery itself, of the word that describes people who are mockers. Pamela values her own virtue more than could be considered healthy.

She ends her letters with “Your dutiful daughter” and all little not-so-virtuous events cause her half-witted heart attacks. I have been scared out of my senses; for just now, as I was folding up this letter in my late lady’s dressing-room, in comes my young master! Good sirs! how was I frightened! I went to hide the letter in my bosom; and he, seeing me tremble, said, smiling, To whom have you been writing, Pamela?–I said, in my confusion, Pray your honour forgive me!–Only to my father and mother. He said, Well then, let me see how you are come on in your writing! O how ashamed I was!–He took it, without saying more, and read it quite through, and then gave it me again;–and I said, Pray your honour forgive me!–Yet I know not for what: for he was always dutiful to his parents; and why should he be angry that I was so to mine? (Richardson, Letter I) Then there is the overly dramatic touch to the ‘fainting’ of Shamela, which she finds so hilarious she can hardly refrain from laughing.

Shamela finds her own actions as gut-bursting as some readers may have found Pamela’s actions – who has a very silly way of behaving in the bedroom. Once more, Shamela makes the opinion and the thoughts behind Pamela’s actions more open and direct, so it seems more funny. While actually, the dramatic fainting is part of her master plan. If she would not have fainted, she would not have made Booby worry as much about her and regret his actions in the same way as he did. In fact, I might very well adopt this scheme and use it in my daily life, it appears to be very handy. The mocking of Pamela’s fainting in Shamela is not as much of a mockery, as almost an excerpt from Pamela itself, as the following passage shows. I found his hand in my bosom; and when my fright let me know it, I was ready to die; and I sighed and screamed, and fainted away. And still he had his arms about my neck; and Mrs. Jervis was about my feet, and upon my coat. And all in a cold dewy sweat was I. Pamela! Pamela! said Mrs.

Jervis, as she tells me since, O–h, and gave another shriek, my poor Pamela is dead for certain! And so, to be sure, I was for a time; for I knew nothing more of the matter, one fit following another, till about three hours after, as it proved to be, I found myself in bed, and Mrs. Jervis sitting upon one side, with her wrapper about her, and Rachel on the other; and no master, for the wicked wretch was gone. (Richardson, Letter XXV) What Shamela uses as a cunning trick to teach Booby a lesson, is for Pamela how she would normally act. Concluding, it is clear that Shamela touches the core of Pamela, what makes it such a good parody. The writing of Pamela itself supplies Fielding with enough material to make a great mockery out of. The strength of Shamela therefore is that it sticks close to its original. Briefly list the pros and cons of the epistolary style, with reference to Pamela. + Pros: It is simply fun to read. The format of a letter is known to all of society and therefore it appeals to a large public.

In the 18th century the letter itself was very popular and writing Pamela in an epistolary style only made the genre more well-known and wanted. An epistolary novel opens doors for readers, as in: that they may read and experience the utmost inner thoughts and feelings of the character(s) that write(s) the letters. It is like a diary to which the writer trusts their feelings. The paper always listens. As reader you might feel the naughty pleasure as if intruding in someone’s private life – no wonder such novels and the gossip magazines of today are so popular. Within Pamela the writing of the letters has an extra dimension, as some of them fall into the wrong hands. This is something to put up with the cons as well, because the reader does not know who knows what exactly. This is one of the more confusing elements of the epistolary novel, which creates problems in more complicated books of this genre – Cornelia Wildschut by Betje Wolff and Aagje Deken is a good example of this. It features may writers, many letters and many entangled relationships that only start to make sense if you draw a family tree.

All letters are written as if most of the events took place just now, or are taking place – which suggests that the reader finds himself within the story more than looking at it from a distance. – Cons: All descriptions are subjectively coloured. Pamela tells us the story of her life at the moment and we believe everything she says. The reader does not stop to think about how all situations would look from the perspective of the other characters – because Pamela is the one who writes about them. Her outlook upon things is all we have. Therefore, most characters (except for Pamela herself, although her characterization is of the indirect kind) are flat. It is logical, of course, because Pamela has already made up her mind and formed her opinion about the characters and everything she says is influenced by her own stance towards the various characters. For the epistolary novel in general, it would take long for the story to evolve. In a ‘normal’ novel, the writer may introduce the characters and situation in which they find themselves – or even make use of this concept by keeping the reader in the dark. If an epistolary novels consists of more than one writer, the relationships between all the writers may be very tricky to discover at first hand.

In Pamela, though, this is not a great problem, since she writes to her parents only and her letters are more of a diary than real letters. To come back to the writing ‘as if in the middle of things’ – this also complicates matters. There is no recapitulation of the story’s events or some element that guides the reader through the story. Pamela has no real overview of her own life, and this leaves the reader partially in the dark. Once more, the epistolary novel in general has another negative point to it. If various writers ‘send’ letters dealing with the same events (which is often the case) and their own opinions about these, the reader may encounter five letters all talking about how Mrs. Dickens broke her teapot. This may very well bore and even bother the reader. In the end, I am personally not a great fan of the epistolary novel, but that may be because of my own traumatic experiences with some of them. Pamela and Shamela, however, I did find highly entertaining and delicious. Due to the fact that they were centered around one character it was more than easy and pleasurable to follow.

Most objections to the epistolary novel do therefore not apply to them. Works Cited Cole, K. L. “Mandeville’s and Fielding’s ‘Unmasked Virgins’.” Notes & Queries. Volume: 45, issue: 4 (1998). 459 – 461. Fielding, Henry. Shamela. London, 1741. New York: Garland, 1974. Golden, Morris. “Public Context and Imagining Self in Pamela and Shamela.” ELH : a journal of English literary history. Volume: 53, issue: 2 (1986). 311-329 Lockwood, T. “Theatrical Fielding”. Studies in the literary imagination. Volume: 32, issue: 2 (1999). 105 – 115. Richardson, Samuel. Pamela, or Virtue Rewarded. Penguin Classics, 1985. [1] When I mistyped ‘Shamela’ I realised the word also makes up ‘she-male’ if you only switch two letters.

Although very saucy, I do not presume Fielding was very well acquinted with that word. He would be more from the Hermaphrodite-generation. [2] This concerns the situation in which Pamela still has something resembling a choice to stay with Mr. B. – not after he has kidnapped her, of course. Share this: Shamela by Henry Fielding | LibraryThing Pamela: or, Virtue Rewarded by Samuel Richardson ( kara.shamy ) kara.shamy : You can't have Shamela without Pamela; they're like two peas in a pod ;) Seriously, you cannot come close to maximizing your appreciation of this work without at least taking a gander at the original Samuel Richardson epistolary novel that inspired this satire.

Please trust me when I tell you the complementary read will pay off in the form of some laughs (or at least some chuckles), which is more than I can say for most highly recommended companion reads (at least that I make) to great novels in English.… ( more ) ▾Lists Amazon.com Product Description ( ISBN 019283343X , Paperback) Henry Fielding wrote both Joseph Andrews (1742) and Shamela (1741) in response to Samuel Richardson's book Pamela (1740), of which Shamela is a splendidly bawdy travesty. Joseph Andrews begins as a parody, too, but soon outgrows its origins, and its deepest roots lie in Cervantes and Marivaux. In both stories, Fielding demonstrates his concern for the corruption of contemporary society, politics, religion, morality, and taste. This revised and expanded edition follows the text of Joseph Andrews established by Martin C. Battestin for the definitive Wesleyan Edition of Fielding's works.

The text of Shamela is based on the first edition, and two substantial appendices reprint the preliminary matter from the second edition of Richardson's Pamela and Conyers Middleton's Life of Cicero, which is also closely parodied in Shamela. This Oxford World's Classics edition also features a new introduction by Thomas Keymer which situates Fielding's works in their critical and historical contexts. (retrieved from Amazon Thu, 12 Mar 2015 18:15:56 -0400) ▾Library descriptions 'Shamela' is Henry Fielding's biting and hilarious response to 'Pamela' by Samual Richardson. 'Pamela' is the story of a young country maid whose master continually makes many improper advances on her. We see her attempts to ward of his advances and her virtue is eventually rewarded by her marriage to her master. Throughout the work Pamela is seen as a complete innocent, utterly naive in the ways of the world. In 'Shamela' we learn from the letters Shamela writes her mother that this was not quite how things were.

Shamela (that is revealed to be the real name of Pamela) completely plans it all out.… ( more ) Quick Links Joseph Andrews and Shamela - Henry Fielding - Oxford University Press Joseph Andrews and Shamela Oxford World's Classics Description Henry Fielding wrote both Joseph Andrews (1742) and Shamela (1741) in response to Samuel Richardson's book Pamela (1740), of which Shamela is a splendidly bawdy travesty. Joseph Andrews begins as a parody, too, but soon outgrows its origins, and its deepest roots lie in Cervantes and Marivaux. In both stories, Fielding demonstrates his concern for the corruption of contemporary society, politics, religion, morality, and taste. This revised and expanded edition follows the text of Joseph Andrews established by Martin C. Battestin for the definitive Wesleyan Edition of Fielding's works. The text of Shamela is based on the first edition, and two substantial appendices reprint the preliminary matter from the second edition of Richardson's Pamela and Conyers Middleton's Life of Cicero, which is also closely parodied in Shamela.

This Oxford World's Classics edition also features a new introduction by Thomas Keymer which situates Fielding's works in their critical and historical contexts. About the Series: For over 100 years Oxford World's Classics has made available the broadest spectrum of literature from around the globe. Each affordable volume reflects Oxford's commitment to scholarship, providing the most accurate text plus a wealth of other valuable features, including expert introductions by leading authorities, voluminous notes to clarify the text, up-to-date bibliographies for further study, and much more.

Question: ‘Shamela’ (1741) was a parody of ‘Pamela’ (1740). Who wrote the latter?
Answer: Samuel RICHARDSON