Satire as Antidote: Anti-Pamela and Shamela

Dear Readers,

After outlining the top five reasons for which Pamela “is by no means innocent,” the mock editor of Fielding’s Shamela writes: “What hath been said is sufficient to persuade you of the use which may arise from publishing an Antidote to this Poison” (76). Haywood’s Anti-Pamela, in its very name, positions itself as medicine to counteract the influence of Pamela.

Top three Pamela parodies Shamela, Joseph Andrews and Anti-Pamela counteract the following symptoms:

“First, there are many lascivious Images in it, very improper to be laid before the Youth of either Sex…

2ndly, Young Gentlemen are here taught, that to marry their Mother’s Chambermaids, and to indulge the Passion of Lust, at the Expense of Reason and Common Sense, is an Act of Religion, Virtue, and Honour; and, indeed the surest Road to Happiness,

3dly, All Chambermaids are strictly enjoyned to look out after their Masters; they are taught to use little Arts to that purpose; …

4thly, In the Character of Mrs Jewkes Vice is rewarded, whence every Housekeeper may learn … pimping and bawding from her Master.

5thly, In Parson Williams, … we see a busy Fellow, intermeddling with the Private Affairs of his Patron …” (Shamela).

Both seasoned playwrights turned novelists, Fielding and Haywood cut through Pamela with satire, revealing the holes in Richardson’s epistolary how-to for young servant girls. Humor, ridicule, irony, and exaggeration expose and criticize the shortcomings, turning Richardson’s own words (i.e., Fielding’s hilarious rapid-fire “Hussy, Slut, Saucebox, Boldface” on page 49) against him–even as Fielding sails into his career as a novelist on the back of Richardson and Haywood inserts herself through Richardson into the Pamela-mania that had, much like syphilis, taken 18th Century England by storm. Fielding and Haywood capitalized on the popularity of Pamela even as they railed against it–appropriate, as Pamela herself capitalized on her attraction of Mr. B. and Richardson profited from the “lascivious images” of the emerging genre of the novel, while they protested it.

Common elements in both Shamela’s and Syrena’s signature formulas include:

• Both Shamela and Syrena are accomplished actresses, apprehended only by circumstances outside their control when the letters are discovered.
• Shamela and Syrena prey upon Mr. B. as they are tempted to have affairs with other men (Syrena with multiple men, Shamela with one), subverting Haywood’s man-as-predator point in A Present for a Servant-Maid.
• Both open their letters with “Dear Mamma,” lowering the “heroine’s” colloquial status.
• As an 18th Century letter-writer would say: “&tc.”

Because romance and satire reveal truth from different angles, it is necessary to peer through the prism of Pamela, Shamela, and Anti-Pamela to understand the evolving gender roles and conventions in 18th Century England. Without the “poison” of Pamela, there would be no need (or market) for Fielding’s “antidote” and Anti-Pamela.

Fielding’s awareness of romance and other genres and how they evolved over time shows up in the prologue of Joseph Andrews, which begins–bizarrely–with an Aristotelean reflection:

“Now a comic Romance is a comic Epic-Poem in Prose; differing from Comedy, as the serious Epic from Tragedy: its Action being more extended and comprehensive; containing a much larger Circle of Incidents, and introducing a greater variety of Characters. It differs from the serious Romance in its Fable and Action, in this; … it differs in its Characters, by introducing Persons of inferiour Rank, and consequently of inferiour Manners, whereas the grave Romance sets the highest before us; lastly in its Sentiments and Diction; by preserving the Ludicrous instead of the Sublime.”

It is possible that the classically trained Fielding is ruffling his feathers to contrast himself with the humble Richardson. It is also possible that Fielding ridicules Richardson’s slip in convention by placing the marriage of Fanny and Joseph at the end–where every classically trained author (not Richardson) knows it belongs.

P.S.

• Shamela Andrews and Syrena Tricksey have no father figure from whom to solicit advice and only write to their mothers, who are accomplices. What is the significance of this? What can we glean from women left to their own devices–literally–to survive in this world?
• And part 2: Can you really blame them for being manipulative, when it was among the only ways they could reconcile their material needs with the conventions by which society, namely Richardson’s recommendations, expected them to conduct themselves?

Your Most Dutiful Daughter–err, I mean, Editor,

Kelly Plante