Pamela and the Devils

The most difficult aspect of Samuel Richardson's text, Pamela, is the manner in which his 'moralizing' occurs. The character begins with temptation, from her employer, Mr. B--. Taken as an allegory, then, Mr. B-- presents himself directly as a seed of temptation to poor Pamela, even going so far as forcing himself on her. However, within this construct, it becomes difficult to see exactly how Richardson's moralizing behaves. For precisely the character who gives Pamela great temptation as well as causing her great harm ultimately becomes her husband, who in turn gives her a list of rules that she must obey, as a 'good' wife. Although here, she has power over him, placing her own interpretation of his rules into the text for the reader's convenient perusal, nevertheless the only thing she truly gains by the marriage is her master's money. She cannot even call him husband, rather becoming quite attached to calling him 'master'.

In this way, and in many others, the text has been questioned greatly concerning its examples of morality. Is Pamela truly an exemplar, or does she accept sin by accepting the corrupted Mr. B--? So great has the controversy become, that there quickly grew a Pamela Controversy within the literary circle.

However, one cannot take the text as an allegory in the manner described above. The characters, Mr. B-- included, become too round in order to 'catch' the allegory correctly. One could argue that perhaps this 'trickery' could further emphasize the allegory, forcing a deep and sensitive interpretation of the text, but the characters still prove too fully developed, and characters such as Mr. Williams, whose virtue does not get truly 'rewarded' inasmuch as not punished, it is difficult to truly see Richardson's motives in painting the characters in the manner in which he does.

One possible interpretation is that Samuel Richardson utilized Mr. B-- as a full character in order to make him more difficult to 'read' for poor Pamela. Although his violent nature cannot be disregarded, one can-- and indeed, Pamela does-- believe his reforms to be truthful. In this way, her temptation is not evil, but the temptation to be able to control a wretch and guide him toward 'the way.' However, read this way, it passes the blame from the tempter to the victim, for in his 'slip' in the sequel, Pamela's reform is put to question. Taken as the above, then, Mr. B--'s slip is a failure on Pamela's abilities to reform. However, a reading as such can become dangerous, blaming Pamela for what she cannot truly be responsible.

So wherein lies the morality of marrying a man who is morally questionable but physically rather rich? Another potential reading of where the morality lies is that Pamela could be seen as making a sacrifice to bring money to her parents, who are repeatedly said to be impoverished. However, this sacrifice would be seen, in the Christian paradigm, as ultimately being a selfish one, even if it is for the family.

The only interpretation that allows any room for morality is that of Pamela's intent (and indeed, much is made of intent within Christian Ethics, especially concerning sexuality). Should she have the intent to reform the corruption that Mr. B-- has within himself, this could potentially solve the problem, and indeed the model fits nicely. For, when bickering with his sister, it is Pamela who stands between the two and beg that they not fight on behalf of her. Pamela is often seen 'checking' the temper of Mr. B--, and taken within the intent of reform, she is not marrying him to succumb to temptation, but rather in the hopes of being a truly significant other, integral to shaping his absent morality.