Evelina Volume II

This volume began with the deception of Madame Duval and ended with the deception of Evelina. It seems to be a constant theme throughout this novel.
It bothered me greatly that one of the cousins blamed Evelina for not staying while the men were exerting their power over the ladies. This was around page 162, the Branghton ladies convince Evelina to walk down one of the dark corridors of the garden that they were at without any supervision and is accosted by groups of men. Evelina runs and is surrounded and who should be in this despicable crowd but Willoghby! He walks with her pursuing his interests over hers and says, “But you have flung me into amazement unspeakable, and you will not condescend to listen to my request of giving me some explanation” (165). What does it matter that she is in the alley and why would she owe him an explanation? Evelina should have inquired why he was amongst the men in the alley! This just adds to the distrustfulness of his character. There is a theme throughout this novel of trust and mistrust. For example, Madame Duval vs. Rev Villars, Captain Mirvan, Willoughby, even Du Bois. Evelina notices that Madame Duval has a problem with being unobservant of the characters around her. Then admits to herself after the letter from Lord Orville in a letter to Miss Mirvan the following, “Yet I cannot but lament to find myself in a world so deceitful, where we must suspect what we see, distrust what we hear, and doubt even what we feel!” (216). She appears to blame herself for putting so high esteem in a person that she barely knew but can this be her fault alone? Can it be that it is the person’s fault that took advantage of the good opinion she held of them? Before this can be answered Evelina becomes sick soon after returning to the country and we are left wondering where this sickness has derived from. Is it ambiguous? A great possibility is that the traveling and the climate change is the cause of it. When she leaves with Mrs. Selwyn, Evelina says she does not feel “so much fatigued as I expected” (224). This introduces the possibility that she is love sick over the loss of Lord Orville. Plus, she constantly says she will not write of him anymore and persists in doing so. After a month stay with Madame Duval, I believe I would be sick to my stomach as well. Evelina was constantly referred to as uneducated and a country bumpkin by the Branghton’s. With the proposal that she should marry that pompous young Branghton, then the admission of love from Du Bois and all of her grand-mama’s violent passions, then Willoughby constantly by her side-- my patience would have been spent as well and I would expect health problems.
What effectual role did Mr. Macartney play in this novel? Evelina prevented him from completing an act of suicide. Considering the stool scene, when they are all standing around trying to decide which ‘diversion’ to attend that evening Evelina extends an invitation to Mr. Macartney in the corner. She shows him respect when everyone else laughs at her intention of kindness. The Branghton’s all call him derogatory names because of his nationality. Evelina gives him money because she know he is in a desperate state. He ends up sending her a letter explaining his situation and thanking her for the kindness she has bestowed upon him. But what does this all amount to? Is it just to show how great of a person she is compared to others? Could it be that there is a suggestion that people can raise above their status in society by having ideal conduct towards others?

Evelina Volume I

When I began Evelina, I thought it was going to be exactly like Pamela. I am happy to say I was wrong. The style of the two stories in the epistolary format are the same but the content differs greatly. Evelina has been raised in a bucolic environment away from anyone that could do her harm. The first time that led my instincts down the path of thinking towards the Cinderella theme was when Rev. Villars writes to Lady Howard and says, “It seems, therefore, as if this deserted child, though legally heiress of two large fortunes, must owe all her rational expectations to adoption and friendship” (14). I have to admit that at some point I expected her to sing and dance in the company of woodland creatures. This was before insight of her character was presented. The beginning of Evelina’s internal thoughts did not begin until page 18 so the impression that I had of her was purely from the opinion of the other characters. When Evelina is pursued at an assembly by Lovel, she does not know how to respond to his persistence. This I found entertaining. The women that she is with all know how to conduct themselves in a ’proper’ fashion but she feels trapped. His persistence was very creepy and comparable to a lot of guys today and how they just cannot except no as an answer. The extent that he took the insult of her not dancing with him was ridiculous. Then to endure the attempts of Sir Clement Willoughby after this, Evelina received a picture of how inappropriate men can act.
Captain Mirvan is just as bad with his insults. One example is when it is their last night out on the town. Evelina and Miss Mirvan express that they enjoyed the opera above everything else and Captain Mirvan says, “they are a set of parrots, and speak by rote, for they all say the same thing…and for you, Moll…I charge that you‘ll never again be so impertinent as to have a taste of your own before my face” (91). This was an interesting scene because he scrutinizes them for not having independent thought and just being lemmings to the world of fashionable events but then turns to say that he disapproves of his daughter having independent thought. Thinking back to the previous males mentioned I do not think they like a woman being in charge of her choices either. Lovel becomes mad because she chooses not to dance with him but dances with Lord Orville. Willoughby will not leave her alone after she dances with him that one time. Being by her side will prevent any other prospects to present themselves to Evelina.
Lord Orville is the best male character so far in this novel (not including the Rev. Villars). I had long ago claimed my love for Mr. Darcy (Pride & Prejudice) but now that place he claimed is rivaled.
The issue with Madame Duval is a complicated one. She seems so intimidating, vicious, and deceitful that I feel like she has a hidden agenda. This brings me to the scene where the Branghton cousins stop by and try to persuade Evelina to go to the opera with them instead of with the Mirvan’s and company (70). It seems like Madame Duval sent them to see what would happen, as if to test Evelina. Maybe I get this sense because when they were leaving they said, “Well, her grand-mama will be in a fine passion, that’s one good thing” (71). Then Madame Duval flies into this angry passion and demonstrates the control that she can exert over Evelina. If this did not occur then Evelina would be ignorant of the submissive role she is expected to play to Madame Duval. Another part that I do not fully understand is why the Branghtons would be writing to Madame Duval of a plan to reinstate Evelina’s inheritance. It is not any of their business unless they plan on profiting from it in some way. These cousins, along with Madame Duval, seem to be up to no good and out for their own benefit and are not to be trusted.

Anti-Pamela

I really enjoyed the realism that Haywood used to portray situations a young girl may find herself in. The adventures of Syrena were very entertaining and they provided a different sort of connection. Haywood places Syrena in situations that are very probable, even today. For example, Syrena gets pregnant and decides to have an abortion. Another example, is when Syrena contracts gonorrhea from having so many partners. These two elements make her story a little more relatable. The contraction of the STD reminded me of the show Sex and the City. These women go around sleeping with random guys that they meet in a bar or even on the street corner but never worry about the possibility of contracting one of the many diseases that are out there. These sexual escapades that Syrena indulges in made me think that there was a little more to it than simply trying to support herself. While Haywood did use situations that are relatable she still included didactic messages. For example, when Mr. W meets Syrena at the park and decides to take her in at the end of this ‘adventure’ there is a lesson, “and ought to be a Warning to all Gentleman how they suffer themselves to be beguiled in the Manner he was, or expect Sincerity from Persons whom they commence an Acquaintance with in the Street” (215).
I found it very interesting that even if Syrena felt that she loved the guy she was with the thought process would default to a business transaction. She kept herself very distant from any of the men she was with, neither love nor hate was present. Which in doing so she gained my respect more than Shamela did. Shamela was an ingrate. While she did not love him, she did not have to harbor such animosity towards him. This is where Syrena maintains a balance.
Both of the anti-Pamela texts that we have read have an absence of a father figure. Whether he is in prison or has died does not matter so much as the result of his absence. Haywood and Fielding both portray Pamela as a gold digger. By the lack of a patriarch in the household they seem to suggest that women can be corrupted without their guidance. In Pamela, Richardson seemed to focus on the fact that her father was the driving force behind her virtuous behavior. Haywood could be suggesting that independent women are a threat to the traditional male role. If a girl is raised by her mother the mother plays both roles, she takes on double the responsibility because she has to act both the parts. This was probably not seen as ’proper.’ Taking a psychoanalytical view, Syrena could be seen as trying to get approval from any male figure she runs into, maybe the acceptance she never received from her father. In fact with so promiscuous a character, I am surprised that Haywood did not exceed the letters of the alphabet.
A couple things did bother me about Syrena and her mother. The first was after scamming Mr. L and being damned by the “pen and paper,” why did they continue to correspond that way while trying to scam Mr. D (139)? It was like they did not even consider the probability of that happening again. Also, why in the world would they continue to use their real names? It would have been easy to create and use aliases. Mrs. Tricksey often has doubts about how she raised her daughter throughout the text, “tis possible the old Woman now began to repent the having tran’d up a Child in that manner” (167). While she had these doubts from time to time she does nothing to hinder the scam that is currently in process. Oh! and did anyone else notice the return of the window theme? Maybe because windows are like people at times. They are transparent, can be dressed with rich fabric, etc. They also have the ability of keeping people out and in. I dont really know what to think just throwing some ideas out there.

Perfect Pamela

I get the impression that there is more meaning to people being viewed as property than the obvious superficial meaning that is easily taken for granted. Pamela begins as a servant in Mr. B’s mansion and then is kidnapped by him when she wants her freedom. Once she leaves and goes to live with her parents he will no longer have any control over her and she will not have to be submissive to his will. This brings me to the letters. After Professor Maruca asked about the significance of the letters, I found myself obsessing over it just as much as Mr. B obsesses about reading them. He provides his own excuses for wanting to read them, such as, “If I had not loved you, do you think I would have troubled myself about your letters” (239) then a couple pages later he says, “you have so beautiful a manner, that it is partly that, and partly my love for you that has made me desirous of reading all you write” (242) and again after he tells Pamela that he does not need to see the letters any longer but would still like to because “for the sake of the sweet manner in which you relate what has passed” (284). There are many more excuses that he provides throughout the text but these examples stood out to me. It seems that he may be able to control and own Pamela physically but it is a very different matter when it comes to her thoughts. This is the aspect of her that he cannot have full possession of. But then it is interesting to consider that he has transformed from a ‘wicked’ master into her ‘generous master.’ It seems that by reading the letters she writes he can change himself into the person she will approve of and in this way he is technically controlling/manipulating her thoughts and the contents of her letters.
I have to address the aspect of the situation that Pamela can control her master by her letters. Her opinion adjusts his behavior. This, I think, is the source of his anger issues. I think that Mr. B does not think he can be as good as Pamela expects or wants. This produces frustration in him and then all hell breaks loose.
I was taken back by the rules that Pamela must follow. She has escaped being a prisoner against her will but now she is a prisoner because it is her will. It was ridiculous when Lady Davers came and Pamela had to jump out the window. Once she gets to one of the houses (I cant remember which one) where Mr. B expected her to be she does not want to share the account of what happened because she remembers the china plate incident that he told her of. My one question is who cares? He should have a full account right then and there about what his insane and hot tempered sister did. At least they did end up discussing it, at the urging of everyone there. Of course everyone there wanted to hear the juicy details of this situation. Another aspect that bothers me is that Mr. B asked if Pamela had any adjustments that she would like to seem him make and she replied that she did not. I would have suggested some anger management and patience. Maybe, a restraining order against his sister.
One scene that really, really stood out to me was when Mr. B sent Pamela away and then became sick. He is lovesick because Pamela has left him. This transforms love from an emotional to a physical level. He would have never recovered if his Pamela did not return to him because her “presence has chased away [his] illness” (280).
When reading a novel, we take notice of the characters and the positive and negative aspects that they embody. I found it interesting that at the end of Pamela, Richardson felt compelled to tell the readers what they should get from his novel. I can see how Richardson got the idea for this novel from letters he was writing regarding conduct. It just seems a little odd in some circumstances, such as, Pamela jumping out the window into the garden to escape, or when she jumps out of the window to escape from Lady Davers. So is this what you are suppose to do when you are taken prisoner? Is this proper conduct? Maybe there is an underlying message about jumping out of windows.

Poor Pitied Pathetic Pamela

Usually when I read a novel with a female protagonist, she is strong and independent in one way or another. Pamela does not seem to possess these qualities because she is always crying, fainting, and/or submitting to the rules of others. She is upset because her master has wronged her but she continues to refer to him in a positive way along with ’naughty’ or ’wicked.’ It seems to me that she likes the attention and the only reason she is upset is because she is expected to be by society. I suspect that internally she loves the attention and her master.
If she wanted to runaway because her virtue was to be stolen she would have but no she stays crying and loathing the event that has not happened yet. It is as if she feels she has no control over her destiny. What would happen if she were to walk out the front door? Aside from the robbers and the bulls plotting against her, I doubt very much that anyone would shoot her. Although, I have reason to fear Mrs. Jewkes just because she was referred to as the devil and no one seems to like her.
I laughed at letter XXV, this is where Pamela’s master is hiding in the closet while Mrs. Jervis and Pamela are sitting on the bed talking and undressing. I could see this scene happening in a movie today. It seems so cliché for a modern comedy film but I don’t know if I was suppose to laugh because the entire book makes such a serious affair out of “poor” or “distressed” (times one hundred) Pamela’s virtue. One section that caught my eye was after Pamela finds out that honest John is dishonest. (Its page 124 in my copy) Under Tuesday and Wednesday. Pamela gets a moment alone with the Reverend and they create the plan of leaving notes in the garden. Well when Mrs. Jewkes joins the conversation, they mislead her to think that they are discussing the town. Pamela says, “But my deceit intended no hurt to any body.” Does this make deceit better if intentions were harmless? It seems that Pamela may be preserving her virtue of virginity but what about the other moral standards of society? Virtue could singularly mean sexual purity and chastity and I am just reading too much into it. Anyways, Pamela does seem to be coming ’undone’ in other ways. On page 116, there was another comical moment when Pamela says, “if I will accept her company to walk with me in the garden.--To waddle with me, rather, thought I.” Pamela’s attitude completely shifts once the text does. She becomes more sarcastic and dramatic towards people. At first she was writing letters and was a perfect angel but once she reaches the mansion she begins writing in a journalistic style and must be watched over constantly.
I cant help but wonder if it was appropriate for masters or the elite to kidnap women they felt entitled to and imprison them until they submitted to their will. Was this acceptable behavior in this time period or was there even a possibility of this happening? It strikes me as odd that none of the characters in the country care to help Pamela while she is locked up in the mansion (besides the Reverend). I suppose that the novel was written for a specific purpose and if events occurred as I wanted it wouldn’t be much of a novel. So I am going to try and read the rest just accepting what may come (and it looks like a lot since this book is 533 pages). Thinking about the trials Pamela is being exposed to reminds me of Arthurian legend. Up until this point I have been looking at Pamela as trying to preserve her virtue maybe if I look at it as her virtue is repeatedly being tested she will appear to be more of a heroine.

Samuel Johnson and his Dictionary

I find it amazing that Johnson wrote a dictionary. I cannot even imagine trying to take on a task of this multitude. It came to my mind that Johnson could have written a dictionary pertaining to literary words only. Today we have all sorts of dictionaries that specify in certain fields, such as, medical, mechanic, art, literature, and the list goes on. Kernan writes that Johnson’s “frequently quoted authors were Locke, 1.674; Hooker, 1,212; Arbuthnot, 1,029; Boyle, 592; Watts, 509” (196). Not only are these astounding numbers but it shows who Johnson thought as reputable. In Johnson’s “Plan of an English Dictionary,” it felt as if he was trying to prove his expertise in the area. He was proving that he was the right candidate to undertake this monumental task. I am not fully convinced that it was completely addressed to Lord Chesterfield, Johnson seems to want to establish to his class why he was chosen for this monumental task. Johnson believes that people from the lower class unfamiliar with terms would be the essential ones that would use the dictionary, “The unlearned much oftener consult their dictionaries for the meaning of words, than for their structures or formations.” They do not care where the word came from or how it is constructed, they only care about the comprehension of a term. For this reason, the Plan is not directed at the lower class. The dictionary is not out yet, so if they were to read this would they be able to understand it? Johnson produces the feeling that his dictionary is like an instruction booklet to the English language versus the others that are in print.
Johnson has the role of a censor. He gets to decide which authors to quote and which works to use as examples of “marks of distinction” (Johnson 13). He is letting his audience know what his intentions are and his ‘plan’ of action in organizing the dictionary. It’s amazing to think about how much of the English language was omitted because Johnson felt that it was “barbarous, or impure” (Johnson 13). One of the major things that I enjoyed about Johnson is that he knew what a arduous job writing a dictionary would be and did it anyways. He expressed it best when he wrote, “…that I am frighted at its extent, and, like the soldiers of Caesar, look on Britain as a new world, which it is almost madness to invade” (Johnson 15).
One aspect that stood out to me was when Johnson signifies that there are “…the different classes of words…” (Johnson 4). I am ignorant on the dictionaries from this time period so this could be a misinterpretation on my part, but it seems that there is a societal influence in the perceptions of the population regarding language. In an anthropology course, I heard that it is human nature to want to classify things into categories, so this very well could just be a standard human component that shined through the work.
Kernan supports Johnson’s work of the dictionary by saying, “…it’s a central idea that the great writers and their books determine the language” (199). He included the battle of language within his article. Lord Chesterfield wanted to keep the Kings language and Johnson discovered that there is no absolute, official rules of language. Johnson accepted that language is subject to interpretation and that no class had the superiority over another in this sense(Kernan 201). It is interesting to think that a “linguistic revolution” (Kernan 201) was taking place around the time with debates about copyright.
http://librivox.org/plan-and-preface-to-a-dictionary-of-english-by-samuel-johnson/
http://andromeda.rutgers.edu/~jlynch/Texts/plan.html
http://andromeda.rutgers.edu/~jlynch/Texts/preface.html

Locke, McDowell, Statute of Anne, Fielding

Locke was very fervent in proving Filmer wrong in his perceptions. While reading Locke’s Second Treatise on Civil Government, I felt I may have a better understanding of the culmination of events if I had read Filmer. I have never read Locke before this so I feel like I have misinterpreted some things… so if I have bare with me. I noticed that Locke was against the divine right that the monarchs were using to secure there power. It was intriguing how he used Adam to create doubt about it. As Locke went on, at times I felt like I was in a sermon because the religious references kept coming. I noticed that Locke did not specifically mention the ‘role’ of women in society, but it could be that he mentioned it later in the essay since we stopped at “Of Paternal Power.” I think I noticed this because I read McDowell’s piece prior to this one.
McDowell made some great observations about “Women in the London Book Trade.” The part that was really fascinating was when she says, ”While women running businesses are commonly assumed by modern historians to have been widows..” (37). It is interesting that there were assumptions made by professional historians. I would have thought they would have thoroughly looked into the facts about history, since its their job and all. My favorite example, and I have to admit I laughed at, was Jane Bradford. She “was accused of keeping her husband a prisoner in his own home” (37). Just because she was an able female individual there had to be something wrong with her. It was just as interesting to learn that Ann Franklin, and Tace Sowle “…appear to have chosen to render their own labour invisible” (39). Considering the accusations against Bradford, they had motivation to be anonymous. I wonder if they felt they had to because of the society they lived in, or if they were conditioned by the society to think that it is improper to take credit for the services they accomplished. The “hawkers and ballad singers” bothered me. It was not because they were ‘breaking the law’ but because they were breaking the law for necessity. The government troubled itself over these women that found a job “purely for want of bread” (58). It is ridiculous to think that they brought women that had handicaps into court for trying to survive. For example, Sarah Ogilbie’s mother was 73 yrs old and blind.
After reading the Statute of Anne, I read Fielding’s “The History of Tom Jones, a Foundling” and I am very glad I did this. I don’t think I would’ve gotten the full effect of Fielding’s perspective otherwise. Reading through the statute, well, it was tedious. At times I had to go back and make sure it was referring to the same charge, like in section one. It was really wordy and repetitive but I suppose that is how law is suppose to be. My favorite part of Fielding was the end, this is when he is discussing Pope being plagiarized by Moore, he says, “…and, for a further punishment, imprisoned the said Moore in the loathsome dungeon of the Dunciad…as a proper punishment for such his unjust dealings in the poetical trade” (437). I just found it comical that as a form of punishment Pope imprisons Moore in an imaginary dungeon. Since Pope is mentioned in this piece that does not cite where quotations are from, I am assuming Pope did the same as Fielding. I think Fielding provided a nice comical relief from the other readings that were assigned.