The Rover

Hello, I am Emisha Ravani. Writing this blog for the text ' The Rover' . For I'm going to discuss Angellica's character. Consider the financial negotiations which one makes before marrying a prospective bride the same as prostitution. 

In late seventeenth-century London, Aphra Behn was the first woman to earn her living as a writer. As a playwright, she wrote plays that reflected historical and cultural aspects of the Restoration from a female perspective. In 1677, she penned one of her most notable plays, The Rover; or The Banished Cavaliers. Behn’s play debuted during the height of the Restoration period, which for theater meant more female agency on the stage because women were allowed to take on female roles for the first time. Behn places the action of her play in Spanish Naples, just before Lent in the midst of carnival, which is a setting fit for emphasizing the urge to break free from societal constraints. Through the stories of Florinda, Hellena, and Angellica, Behn integrates strong elements of feminism and libertinism by focusing on issues of marriage, self-identity and representation. Each of these character types represents a different aspect of a woman’s struggle to define herself during the Restoration.

Florinda’s character encompasses the Restoration woman’s struggle to gain agency in marriage. Before arriving at carnival, Florinda is trapped in the midst of a battle between following her own desire and the desires of her family. She wants to marry the English colonel Belvile, but must obey the patriarchal orders of her father and brother to marry who they see fit for her. In Katherine Quinsey’s book Broken Boundaries: Women & Feminism in Restoration Drama, Peggy Thompson points out that during the time that Behn wrote, male relatives often negotiated marriage contracts for the women in their family, but did so “not to protect their wards’ autonomy and property, but to enhance familial and dynastic interests” (Quinsey 73). In Florinda’s case, these interests would lead her to marry a rich elderly man named Don Vinciento. In a conversation with her brother Don Pedro during the opening scene, Florinda claims that she hates Don Vinciento, despite the fact that her brother says he could provide a good life for her in his “ancient villa belonging to the family of Vincentios these five hundred years,” (1.1.113-114). However, the prospect of marrying a man for property and stature is not appealing to Florinda, and she goes on to compare the tradition of arranged marriage to slavery, calling it an “ill custom” (1.1.77).

This “ill custom” was not generally espoused during the Restoration. In Susan Staves’ article, “Behn, Women, and Society”, she describes how prior to the challenges of the Civil Wars, the Church of England taught that children had a “religious obligation to honour and obey their parents” (13). But during the Restoration, the church clergy and “most decent people” felt that while the daughter was still obligated to listen to her parents in terms of a suitor, she should still have the ability to choose who she wanted to marry (13). This shift in perspective gave women a sense of agency in who they chose to marry, which is important to Florinda’s character because it allows her to break free of her social limitations. In her conversation with Don Pedro, Florinda rejects the patriarchal order of marriage and then ventures off to carnival with her sister Hellena, defying her brother once again as he had just ordered her not to go.

With Florinda’s sister Hellena, Behn exposes the struggle of self-identification, specifically in terms of faith. Hellena has been set on the path to become a nun, and as she ventures off to carnival with her sister, the masquerade is a tool for her to free herself from societal restraints and experience real love. As noted earlier, the Church of England was very influential during the Restoration. Behn incorporated religion into The Rover, but she presented a critical view of church customs by portraying such strong libertine ideals from a devout character like Hellena. In the first scene Hellena tells Florinda that she would like to see her and Belvile together because she hopes he has “some mad companion or other that will spoil [her] devotion” (1.1.42-43). She is enraptured with the idea and confesses to her sister that she thinks it is “very pretty to sigh, and sing, and blush…and long to wish to see a man” (1.1.13-14). Throughout the action at carnival, Hellena is determined not to return home and become what is expected of her. This illustrates the libertinism that goes against the patriarchal order ingrained in her religious devotion.

Hellena’s libertine values are very apparent when she meets Wilmore. Their courtship begins immediately and she tells him that vowing to die a maid is “foolish” (1.2.179). Wilmore and Hellena are both looking for an escape at carnival. When he arrives on shore, Wilmore tells the cavaliers that his “business ashore was only to enjoy [him]self a little this carnival” (1.2.77-78) hinting that he is looking for female companionship to occupy his time on the island.  Hellena’s feelings of oppression, curiosity and yearning for male companionship connect the libertine elements of these two characters together. In her article, Staves discusses how a central problem for Behn “was to work out the sharply different consequences of libertinism for women” (19). While Wilmore, the libertine man, thrives on sexual conquest and fails to yield anything constant outside of the moment, Hellena, the libertine woman, experiences her feelings as “proof that she is desirable” while also threatening her sense of identity (20). This contrast is evident in the plot since Wilmore has sexual desire for Hellena as well as the fair courtesan, Angellica Bianca.

Despite their increasing agency in choosing a marriage partner, women in the Restoration were nonetheless valued as commodities. Angellica Bianca is an example of this as her struggles stemmed from social perspectives of value within the marketplace. The Staves article mentions that Behn was intrigued by the “’value’ of women in her society and experiment[ed] with dividing and isolating elements of conventional female value” (21). In her profession, Angellica usually takes on the dominant role in choosing a mate. “Nothing but gold shall charm my heart” (2.1.164), she proclaims after hearing about the cavaliers seeking to purchase her for the 1,000 crown price tag. The amount that the men are willing to pay represents her value and elevates her idea of self worth.

Angellica’s role reflects a need for representation and agency for women during the Restoration. She wears no mask, unlike Florinda and Hellena when they go to carnival, and has a reputation outside of carnival based on her profession. Staves insightfully describes her character type as “Behn’s version of a maximally desirable woman [who] simultaneously possesses beauty, the power to evoke desire in men, wealth, and wit” (21). Unlike Florinda and Hellena, who seek to gain independence, Angellica’s conflict is between the powerlessness of love and maintaining control of a powerful commodity. In the second act, the cavaliers gaze at Angellica’s picture and discuss the contracted price. Words such as “stock” (2.1.21) and “quality” (2.1.60) are used. When Wilmore meets with Angellica’s woman in the second scene, he proposes that he split the cost with his friends and each would share an equal portion of her time (2.2.48-56). Though this is a blatant insult to her profession, Angellica is intrigued and implores Wilmore to continue his pursuit. She claims that she has never been in love before (2.2.123) but she falls for Wilmore, who argues that placing a price on sexual pleasure is a “sin” (2.2.15). With the argument of conventional morality on her mind, she in turn gives him her power by breaking the rules of her profession, allowing him to be with her at the cost of his love alone (2.2.155-65). Like Florinda and Hellena, Angellica broke the rules of her society for love, but the end result did not help her position in the marketplace.

Though each of these women was a valuable social commodity in their respective situations, Florinda began with no sense of agency, and the power shift in her patriarchal environment gave her more agency to choose who she would marry. Hellena began with the same level of agency as her sister, being forced into a life as a nun, but the shift in power allowed her to take on a new identity with a man which in turn gave her more agency in her devotion. Angellica, on the other hand lost power by falling in love. It left her vulnerable and decreased her level of agency which lowered her social value and self-worth.

Through Florinda, Hellena, and Angellica, Behn was able to bring to life some of the ideals of the Restoration while also critiquing popular movements within the era. Each of these characters endures a social struggle that fits into a bigger picture for the time. Marriage, self-identity and social representation are all topics that women of the Restoration were faced with and characterized what it meant to be a woman during that time. Behn’s execution of these elements makes The Rover a critical part of the history of Restoration Theater. 

Even though I’ve previously discussed this I thought that it was just as relevent when going over “The Rover” for a second time.

Whilst reading “The Rover”; or “The banished Cavaliers” I was intrigued by the character Angellica Bianca.  There were points throughout the play where I felt sorry for the circumstances she found herself in as it was probably not her first choice to enter into the profession of a whore.  So my question is: is she a good or bad character? To be more specific, does she vountarily or knowingly commit the acts she does or is she caught in a life that is not meant for her?  The following will explore these questions and attempt to come to a conclusion.

Women in seventeenth century Europe had few options in terms of marriage and courtship. They could not initiate relations with men, often their father and/ or their brother would decide whom they would marry. Once a rich and respectable suitor was found a dowry payment was invested in the hope of an advantageous marriage. The youngest of daughters were often sent to convents in an attempt to reduce expenses, while at the same time remaining religious and contributing to the church. Yet, in poorer families, prostitution was an inevitable choice of life for some young women. Although, we do not know the background of our courtesan we can almost assume she has come from a poor background. It is with this thought in mind that we must analyze Angelica; yet not with a bias view.

The socio-historic context of this play was at a time when there was a sexual reawakening after years of Puritan rule. This second ‘renaissance’ of sex therefore made prostitution a reliable business for any woman who had not come from a well to do background. Angellica is not a common whore though, in the play she is a very beautiful and famous courtesan:

‘How wondrous fair she is’

Being of this position she can therefore exercise her ability to seduce men and gain financial benefit. One such example of her underlying power over the men in this play is when Willmore and Antonio start a fight and it is her who breaks them up by ‘commanding them to stop’. This is particularly important to the play as a whole as she is the only female in this play who has any power in a seemingly evident patriarchal society further emphasizing its unusualness. Yet it is here that her real power stops. She has beauty, men adore her sexuality and she can command them like dogs but as the play progresses we get to see more and more of how she is a victim and how she is only a body for men to conquer.

The men straight away see her as a product they could buy and depersonalize. Belvile shows great concern to her ‘price’, blunt refers to her as a ‘commodity’ and Willmore speaks of his need to ‘purchase’ her beauty. Although Angellica makes clear the workings of the market place for her body; curiosity feeds her credit and price. Her credit is balanced upon the continued titillation of the men’s desire, through the displaying of her pictures. This shows her dependence on this financial system and her clever manipulation of it. She is wanton of men who have power and wealth; she clearly thinks Pedro will adjust her status for the better and remarks

“a slave that can add little to the triumph of the conqueror”

We see this again for Antonio another man of influence:

“tis for him, Don Antonio the viceroys son, that I have spread my nets.”

Behn ultimately suggests that sexual slavery is both the inevitable conclusion and choice for women like Angellica.

Yet she faces sadness and anger as the play draws to an end, she is played false by the rover that is Willmore. He has played her falsely and given her a real impression that he wants her deeply.

“By heaven, bright creature, I would not for the world, thy fame were half so fair as is thy face”

But as we know Willmore scouts out Hellena his ‘gypsy’ and attempts to bed her right in front of Angellica

“Come then, for a beginning, show me thy dear face”

It is only at the finale that we see the desperate Angellica almost kill Willmore out of love.

Therefore in conclusion these two statements work together to explain our courtesan. She unknowingly controls men and has a false heart and claims only gold shall charm it. In contrast she is a victim of circumstance and is never really loved for who she is, but for what she is.

'Hard Times' - theme of Utilitarianism

Hello, I am Emisha Ravani. Writing this blog for the answer of the text 'Hard times'. Wherein I'm going to discuss the theme of Utilitarianism. 



Now we will see this term how has been used in the text. 

Utilitarianism is the assumption that human beings act in a way that highlights their own self-interest. It is based on factuality and leaves little room for imagination. Dickens provides three vivid examples of this utilitarian logic in Hard Times. The first; Mr. Thomas Gradgrind, one of the main characters in the book, was the principal of a school in Coketown.

He was a firm believer in utilitarianism and instilled this philosophy into the students at the school from a very young age, as well as his own children. Mr. Josiah Bounderby was also a practitioner of utilitarianism but was more interested in the profit that stemmed from it. At the other end of the perspective, a group of circus members, who are the total opposite of utilitarians, are added by Dickens to provide a sharp contrast from the ideas of Mr. Bounderby and Mr. Gradgrind.

Thomas Gradgrind Sr., a father of five children, has lived his life by the book and never strayed from his philosophy that life is nothing more than facts and statistics. He has successfully incorporated this belief into the school system of Coketown and has tried his best to do so with his own children.

The educators see children as easy targets just waiting to be filled with information. They did not consider, however, the children’s need for fiction, poetry, and other fine arts that are used to expand children’s minds, all of which are essential today in order to produce well-rounded human beings through the educational process.

One has to wonder how different the story would be if Gradgrind did not run the school. How can you give a utilitarian man such as Gradgrind such power over a town? I do like how Dickens structures the book to make one ask obvious questions such as these.

Dickens does not tell us much about the success of the other students of the school besides Bitzer, who is fairly successful on paper but does not have the capacity as a person to deal with life’s everyday struggles. Gradgrinds two oldest children, Tom and Louisa, are examples of how this utilitarian method failed miserably.

These children were never given the opportunity to think for themselves, experience fun things in life, or even use their imaginations. True, they are smart people in the factual sense but do not have the street smarts to survive. Tom is a young man who, so fed up with his father’s strictness and repetition, revolts against him and leaves home to work in Mr. Bounderby’s bank.

Tom, now out from under his father’s wing, begins to drink and gamble heavily. Eventually, to get out of a deep gambling debt, he robs a bank and is forced to flee the area. When Bitzer realizes that Tom has robbed the bank and catches him, Mr. Gradgrind begs him to let Tom go, reminding him of all of the hard work that was put on him while at the school.

Ironically Bitzer, using the tools of factuality that he had learned in Gradgrinds school, replies that the school was paid for, but it is now over and he owes nothing more. I think this is extremely funny how, at a time of need, Gradgrind’s educational theory has backfired in his face. I think Dickens put this irony in as a comical device but also to show how ineffective the utilitarian method of teaching is.

Louisa, unlike Tom, does get along with her father. She even agrees to marry Mr. Bounderby, even though she does not love him, in order to please her father. She stays in the marriage with Bounderby and goes about life normally and factually until she is faced with a dilemma and panics. Mr. James Harthouse, a young, good-looking guy, is attracted to Louisa and deceivingly draws her attraction to him.

She does not know what to do since she has never had feelings of her own before. Her father never gave her the opportunity to think for herself, or even love someone. This is why Louisa goes frantic and ends up crying in her father’s lap.

She has always been told what to do and what is ‘right’, and now even her father is stumped. For the first time in the whole novel, Mr. Gradgrind strays from the utilitarian philosophy and shows compassion for his daughter and her feelings. One must think that he is beginning to doubt his philosophy after seeing it backfire in his face more than once.

Josiah Bounderby is another prime example of utilitarianism. He is one of the wealthiest people in Coketown; owning a bank and a factory, but is not really a likable person. His utilitarian philosophy is similar to Gradgrinds in the sense that factuality is the single most important virtue that one could possess.

Mr. Bounderby maintained throughout the story his utilitarian views, which basically stated that nothing else is important besides profit. Being the owner of both a factory and a bank, Bounderby employs many workers, yet seems to offer them no respect at all. He refers to the factory workers as “Hands,” because that is all they are to him. Bounderby often states that workers are all looking for “venison, turtle soup, and a golden spoon,” while all they really want is decent working conditions and fair wages for their work.

He is not concerned about his employees as human beings, but how much their hands can produce during the workday, resulting in money in his pocket. When one of his workers, Stephen Blackpool came to Bounderby’s house asking for advice about his bad marriage, he was treated as inferior just because of his social status. Dickens portrayed the scene as one in which Blackpool was on a level five steps below Bounderby and his associates because he was a lowly worker who was obviously much less educated than them.

It almost seemed like they would not even take him seriously because he was such. Blackpool was told that he could not divorce his wife because it would be against the laws of England. Later in the book, Bounderby divorces his wife. This shows that wealth played a large role in determining the social classes that people were in and the privileges they had.

This was definitely unfair but the social classes were structured in a way that allowed those who had money to look down upon those who were less fortunate. Generally, those who were not well-educated did not have any money, while the well-educated ones such as Bounderby and Gradgrind were wealthy. The people who knew the factual information, (utilitarians) were successful, while those who did not were reduced to working in the factories of the utilitarians.

Dickens paints a vivid picture of this inequality between social classes and shows he does not care much for it. It is fairly easy to see that Dickens holds contempt for Bounderby and the utilitarian philosophy he carries. The book details the philosophy, then shows how miserably it failed. How much different would their lives be if the town was not run by utilitarians?

Dickens cleverly added circus people as a contrast to the utilitarian approach to life. The circus people could be called the total opposite of utilitarianism. If one element of the book stands out in my mind, it would be this one.

The circus people are simple, open-minded human beings whose goal in life is to make people laugh. Dickens portrays them as a step up from the “Hands” but still close to the bottom in the social structure. These people are hated by Gradgrind, Bounderby and other utilitarians because they represent everything that is shunned in utilitarianism such as love, imagination, and humor.

Sissy Jupe, the daughter of a circus man, was taken in by the Gradgrinds to live in their home. She is representative of the circus people with her innocence and free-will, qualities that are lacking in the lives of the people around her. Just by her presence, her goodness rubs off on the people around her, although it is too late for most of them.

Even after numerous attempts to force utilitarianism into her by Mr. Gradgrind and his school, she is still the fun-loving girl that she always was because she grew up living with “normal” people who thought for themselves and loved each other. She influenced these qualities on the youngest Gradgrind daughter Jane, who led a much more enjoyable and fulfilling life than her older sister Louisa because of those influences.

Jane is not spoken of much until the end of the book but I like the way Dickens showed the effects of the utilitarian lifestyle as opposed to the non-utilitarian lifestyle. The utilitarians ultimately ended with a great downfall because their narrow-minds could not endure the pressures that life can impose on oneself.

The people that did not fall victim to the utilitarian trap were able to live their lives happily and freely, able to love, laugh, and use their imagination; which is the way life ought to be lived. Dickens obviously had a definitive opinion of the way life should be lived and did an excellent job of depicting it.

His method was somewhat indirect in the sense that he worked backward to get his point across but turned out to be very effective as the story progressed. Most of the story revolved around utilitarianism and the study of cold hard facts, but when the character flaws began to surface as a result of this philosophy, Dickens is quick to emphasize them.

One actually sees the main character of the book and firm supporter of utilitarianism, Mr. Thomas Gradgrind, experience the faults of his practice and begin to stray from it. Now, after watching his life fall apart, maybe he wishes he were in the circus.

Utilitarianism explaination

Importance of being Ernest

Hello, I am Emisha Ravani. Writing this blog for text ' Importance of being Ernest' . For that I'm answering, Which of the female character is the most attractive to you among Lady Augusta Bracknell, Gwendolen Fairfax, Cecily Cardew and Miss Prism? Give your reasons for she being the most attractive among all.

Jack Worthing

A young gentleman from the country, in love with Gwendolen Fairfax.

Algernon Moncrieff

A young gentleman from London, the nephew of Lady Bracknell, in love with Cecily Cardew.

Gwendolen Fairfax

A young lady, loved by Jack Worthing.

Lady Bracknell

A society lady, Gwendolen’s mother.

Cecily Cardew

A young lady, the ward of Jack Worthing.

Miss Prism

Cecily’s governess

The Reverend Canon Chasuble

The priest of Jack’s parish

Lane

Algernon’s butler

Merriman

Jack's servant

Jack and Algernon are wealthy gentlemen. Jack (known to Algernon as Ernest) lives a respectable life in the country providing an example to his young ward Cecily. Algernon lives in luxury in London and has invented an imaginary invalid friend (Bunbury) whom he visits in the country whenever an unappealing social engagement presents itself. Jack has also invented a character - a wayward younger brother called Ernest whom he uses as pretext for going up to London and enjoying himself.

Jack wants to marry Algernon’s cousin Gwendolen, but must first convince her mother, Lady Bracknell, of the respectability of his parents. For Jack, having been abandoned in a handbag at Victoria station, this is quite a difficult task.

Algernon visits Jack’s house in the country and introduces himself to Cecily as Ernest, knowing that Cecily is already fascinated by tales of Ernest's wickedness. He further wins her over and they become engaged.  Shortly after, Jack arrives home announcing Ernest’s death. This sets off a series of farcical events. Cecily and Gwendolen have a genteel stand-off over which of them has a prior claim on ‘Ernest’. Jack and Algernon vie to be christened Ernest. Eventually, Jack discovers that his parents were Lady Bracknell’s sister and brother-in-law and that he is, in fact, Algernon’s older brother, called Ernest. The two sets of lovers are thus free to marry.

During these events the characters of  Canon Chasuble and Cecily’s governess Miss Prism have also fallen in love, and in the best tradition of the well-made play the story ends with all the loose ends tied up and everyone set to live happily ever after.

Talking about Miss Prism we have to start with the information where she works – she is the governess of Cecily. She is educating Cecily to have no imagination or sensationalism in her life. She was working on her family since very early ages, and that is why she is very honorable there.

Also, as you see, nothing is going on without love line. So, Miss Prism being unmarried, falls in love with Chasuble, though the fact that he is a priest prohibits her from telling him about her feelings directly.

As a governess and a person, Miss Prism is an endless source of pedantic talking, stereotypes, and clichés. She approves Jack because of his rightness and always says what a bad person is his “brother.” Her puritan points of view cause nothing more than laughter sometimes.

If not paying attention to her bad sides, her rigidity, she seems to have soft sides too. Once she even wrote a manuscript, but it was not approved. So, maybe exactly where she wanted to write something very personal and to open herself from another side? Because what can be another reason to abandon manuscripts of such a right person?

This woman is a symbol of Victorian moral righteousness. She plays a role of the ideal woman. Unfortunately, not a great amount of people need ideal stuff. She becomes the source of Jack's revelation about his parents.

This woman is kind of an example of the person you’d better not to be. Think for yourself, but do you want to be forever alone just because you have some prejudices which only you understand? Miss Prism was that kind of people we can now call “oh I will not do that because what people will think about me?” Yes, don’t do that, act the way only you want.

Miss Prism is also intellectual, but in a literary way. She is a creative writer and a parody of "a woman with a past." She clearly had dreams of becoming a sensational romantic novelist, but, alas, she must make a living, so she is instead the jailer of Cecily and the guardian of her education and virtue. She, like the minister, makes constant moral judgments. Her favorite line, even to dead Ernest, is "As a man sows, so shall he reap." Repeating this often allows Wilde to show how meaningless and clichéd religion and values have become. As an instrument of the aristocracy, Miss Prism educates Cecily to conform to the dry, meaningless intellectual pursuits designed to keep the status quo. But, like Chasuble, beneath her surface she has a hedonistic streak; often her language slips when she ventures outside her Victorian appearance. She persists in inviting Chasuble to discuss marriage, pursues him diligently, and falls into his arms at the end.

Miss Prism is an appropriate character to uncover Jack's true history because she also is not what she seems. Wilde uses her to show what happens when dreams cannot be pursued in a society of strict social structure and stringent moral guidelines. Both she and Chasuble — with their lack of social opportunities — become servants to the system, promoting its continuation.

The Love-Sick Girl

For all of her bluster and stern judgment on Ernest Worthing's character, Miss Prism turns out to be just as sentimental and romantic as the rest of the cast. Her interactions with Dr. Chasuble reveal a different, slightly softer side of her personality.

In Act II, Miss Prism tries to uphold her strict educational standards when Dr. Chasuble enters but is soon swayed into neglecting her duties for a stroll with the man she's in love with. She does leave her pupil with instructions to study political economy in her absence. In her instructions, we see that even this softer side of Miss Prism still has some iron in it. She says, in a somewhat allegorical way, ''The chapter on the fall of the Rupee you can omit… Even these metallic problems have their melodramatic side.''

And indeed, the metallic Miss Prism does have a melodramatic side that continues to surface just below her stern exterior. It's especially evident in her relationship with Dr. Chasuble, but when her involvement in Jack's original story is revealed in Act IV, we realize she's just as hopeless as the rest of the cast.

The Governess

We first meet Miss Prism in Act II of The Importance of Being Earnest. She is employed by Jack Worthing as a governess, a type of private teacher, to his ward Cecily Cardew.

You've probably heard of a governess before and have a pretty clear picture in your head of what they are like. Stern might be the adjective that comes to mind, or straight-laced. It would be wrong to say that all governesses are strict disciplinarians and morally incorruptible, but most fictional representations of them seem to want us to believe they are.

Miss Prism is no different. When she first appears, she is nagging Cecily to return to her studies. The fact that she is pushing Cecily to work on her German might be a coincidence, but Oscar Wilde wasn't one for coincidences. German, a language and culture with a reputation for sternness, implies a similar hardness in Miss Prism's character.

As the scene continues and the conversation turns to the unfortunate Mr. Ernest Worthing, Miss Prism's morality and stiffness become more apparent. ''I am not in favor of this modern mania for turning bad people into good people at a moment's notice. As a man sows so let him reap,'' she says. It's a phrase and judgment she will repeat several times throughout the play.

When Algernon, pretending to be Ernest, is presented with a large bill and turns to Jack for financial help, Miss Prism opposes Jack paying the debt. ''There can be little good in any young man who eats so much, and so often,'' she proclaims. She even goes as far as saying, ''this proposed incarceration might be most salutary. It is to be regretted that it is only for twenty days.'' Pretty harsh, don't you think?

This harsh personality is important. Miss Prism is the only major character with it. Unlike Jack, Algernon, Cecily, and Gwendolen, who are all quite whimsical in their approach to life, Miss Prism seems to have her head on straight. The audience can identify with her more easily because of this, and she creates a contrast to amplify the sentimentality and absurdity of the other characters.

From this introduction, it is easy to assume that Miss Prism is indeed one of those strict, morally incorruptible governesses. However, that façade cracks somewhat when Dr. Chasuble appears.

Pamela or Virtue Rewarded

Hello, I am Emisha Ravani . Writing this blog for the Pamela or virtue rewarded. 

The question is: Is Pamela a reliable narrator? If Yes, then Why? If No, then Why

first publication of Richardson’s Pamelai.it is surprising to see how emotionally charged the Pamela-debate still is. Its central question, whether Pamela’s narration is reliable, is still able to initiate a heated discussion. The reason for this is that Pamela’s story is far more than the narration of the experience of a servant-girl. It always was and obviously still is a matter of politics and political correctness, almost comparable to the alleged sexual affairs of President Clinton.

In Pamela’s case, however, we do not ask whether he really did it. Nobody wants to spare Mr B. the embarrassment of being guilty of sexual harassment. Mr B.,clearly, is not the point of interest. Instead, we ask whether Pamela is really telling the truth about herself. This aspect of her reliability turns out to be the most important one. What is at stake is Pamela’s virtue, and this is the fate she shares with Mr Clinton. Both have been elected to hold a powerful public position, with the difference that Pamela has not been elected by the people but by her author Samuel Richardson. I want to argue that Pamela’s problems apart from Mr B., i.e. our doubts about her reliability and in turn about her virtue and vice versa, start with the intentions her author had in mind while allowing her to tell her story. It is precisely the tension between her intended public position as an example of virtue and the fact that her story is told in letters written and copied almost exclusively by herself that we start to doubt whether she really is the virtuous and therefore reliable person she has to claim to be.

There can be no doubt that Samuel Richardson intended Pamela to be an example of virtue, a role-model for every woman’s behaviour, an instrument to teach proper conduct. In his preface he solemnly declares that he hopes “to incalculate religion and morality” with his book. In order to achieve this he “paint VICE in its proper colours, to make it deservedly odious; and . . . set VIRTUE in its proper amiable light, to make it look lovely”.Both male and female readers are expected to draw their lessons from a story presented according to these principles. Since our “practicle example” of virtue in this case is Pamela The following description applies to her: she is regarded as “worthy to be followed in the most critical and affecting cases, by the virgin, the bride, and the wife”. In short, Pamela is a didactic representation of virtue.

This virtue is presented to us in the story of Pamela’s resistance against the sexual advances Mr B. makes to her after his mother’s death. Her unwillingness to comply with his desire – with or without payment – is motivated by her determination that she “will die a thousand deaths, rather than be dishonest in any way” . She is “resolved to be virtuous”  and remains virtuous through all the temptations Mr B. creates for her. In the end he is not only convinced that she means what she says but is also ashamed of his own behaviour.

Pamela’s exemplary virtue succeeds in converting Mr B. to a virtuous life and exerts the same influence over her growing audience in the novel.

As such an exemplary role-model of virtue Pamela has to be – at least consciously – a reliable narrator for, as Michael McKeon notes, in Richardson’s Pamela “questions of virtue cannot be unravelled from questions of truth.”

the narrator who is deliberately unreliable clearly forfeits her claim to virtuous behaviour. Consequently, Richardson cannot give the subtitle Virtue Rewarded to Pamela and present her as an unreliable narrator at the same time. And indeed,on the level of the narration itself Pamela is treated and presented as both an extremely virtuous girl and a reliable narrator.

First of all the “editor” of Pamela’s letters assures his readers in the preface that “the following Letters . . . have their foundation in Truth” . When He interrupts Pamela’s narration in order to report her abduction to Mr B.’s

Lincolnshire estate and events that happened without Pamela’s knowledge he does neither contradict her version of the story nor expresses doubts about her virtuous behaviour, quite the contrary. The reader learns that Mr B. intends “to prosecute his base designs upon the the innocent virgin”. We also read that all Bedfordshire servants “greatly loved and honoured the fair damsel.” The editor confirms that Mr B. does not only plan to take Pamela’s virtue but also misrepresents her character in a letter to and a conversation with her father. His summary of Pamela’s situation is that “thus every way was the poor virgin beset.” 

Not only the editor but also the other characters in the novel share this evaluation. Mrs Jervis is convinced that Pamela “was one of the most virtuous

and industrious creatures she ever knew.” She “never saw any thing

but innocence in her.”  Lady Davers remarks that “every body gave . . .

[Pamela] a very good character, and loved [her]”. Mr Jonathan, the butler,is “sure that I will sooner believe any body in fault than you [Pamela]” and his colleague Mr Longman is convinced that “every body must be good to her” since she is “so mild and meek to every one of us in the house” .After Pamela’s victory over Mr B. the whole neighbourhood is full of praise for her. Pamela is regarded as “an honour to our sex, and as a pattern for all the

young ladies in the country.” 

But then Richardson’s intention to create such a pattern for every lady in thecountry in the form of an epistolary novel causes several problems. He knows that a story that intends to promote virtue has to be entertaining in order to be read, that is in order to be able to exert influence. Therefore he wants to “divert and entertain” and to “instruct and improve” at the same time. The story is supposed to be “equally delightful and profitable”. He also wishes to do this “in so probable, so natural, so lively a manner, as shall engage the passions of every sensible reader, and attach their regard to the story” . It becomes obvious that Richardson hopes to achieve extremely conflicting ends.

Much of the literary criticism written about Pamela proves that the epistolary form is a very suitable means to engage the passions of the reader and enable him to relate to the story. But a didactic novel that is almost completely told in –supposedly entertaining – letters written by the virtuous heroine herself puts the narrator in an extremely difficult position and creates numerous disadvantages regarding the intended lesson of the narration by making it almost impossible for her to maintain her virtuous image.

First of all it should be noted that Pamela is convinced that she is a reliable narrator. In her opinion her letters and journal entries contain all her “private thoughts . . . and all the secrets of my heart.” What she records on paper is her “heart at the time; and this is not deceitful." When Mr B. accuses her of having encouraged Mr Williams to love her by discouraging him explicitly in her letters Pamela claims that she “know[s] nothing . . . of the practices of artful women! I have no art!” Again and again she assures that “I have only writ the truth” .But then everybody knows that a letter writer’s judgement concerning her own reliability is not necessarily correct. Samuel Johnson’s contradictory statements about the possibilities of the letter illustrate the difficult situation of Pamela.

“In a Man’s Letters”, he writes in his own correspondence, “his soul lies naked

. . . Nothing is inverted, nothing distorted.” This attitude belongs to a tradition

which recognizes the letter “as the true voice of feeling . . . as a means of conveying authentic personality and experience.”4 At the same time, however, the letter was seen as a means of deceit and pretence. Accordingly, Dr Johnson states in his ‘Life Of Pope’ that “there is, indeed, no transaction which offers stronger temptations to fallacy and sophistication than epistolary intercourse.”5 The reason for this is that the letter is a “calm and deliberate performance, in the cool of leisure,in the stillness of solitude” and Johnson cannot imagine that a “man sits downt o depreciate by design his own character.”6 The reader might, therefore, be the victim of a fallacy when he believes in Pamela’s assurances of reliability.Obviously, we have to decide whether to trust Pamela’s narration or not.

Richardson may be said to have compounded his own difficulties by

confining his narrative of his heroine’s triumph almost solely to that

heroine’s voice, thereby violating an implicit rule of feminine behavior that the Lady’s Magazine would later spell out for its readers in one

of its numerous essays ‘On Modesty’: ‘take care you do not make

yourself the heroine of your own story. 

Video that how can you consider unreliable narrator