“Pamela“ as an Illustration of the 18th Century Model of Female Virtue
What is a virtue? Does it come from within or can it be learnt? Is Mr. B virtuous by the act of the marriage despite his previous actions? Or does the state of virtue exist only for a female sex? Virtue can be defined as “an admirable behaviour that includes specific traits: charity, chastity, humility, loyalty, fidelity, and other selfless behaviour. Love is considered to be the highest virtue, and the other virtues often inspire love, in the case of courtly love.“[1] All of these, and many more, Pamela does possess. It is obvious that nobody can be so virtuous, or at least nobody is, and so we can state that although Pamela as a work is a realistic novel, Pamela as a character does not exist in a real life. She is presented as someone who lives by the book, an unimaginative and stoic rule-follower, who still maintains the traditional role of the female: the keeper of morals through the mask of humble femininity. She is more like a hanger with all the virtues she represents. And without them, the whole novel would be in ruins- virtue is a supporting member in this case. Robert Folkenflik approaches Pamela as a view of "social and relative duties, centering on the relation of self to others and the tensions between social and religious roles."[2] Sometimes it seems that Richardson suggests virtue can only exist alongside virginity. Virtue is not a natural state of grace, but something we come to while facing misfortunes. It is a prize and it should be our goal, we have to try to achieve it. The problem of this novel is very specific and contemporary. We can not apply it on a modern society and that is why we have to take it from the 18th century perspective. The main conflict is between the idea of virtue as an abstract notion and self proclamation of it. In this essay I will focus on the first volume of Pamela, especially on the first letters to her parents, where we can read out...