{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_31242/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_31242","id":"gutenberg_31242","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/31242","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Essays, Letters & Speeches","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Richardson, Samuel, 1689-1761"],"text":"Produced by Louise Hope, Delphine Lettau, Joseph Cooper\nand the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at\nhttps://www.pgdp.net\n\n\n\n\n\n[This text is intended for users whose text readers cannot use the\n\"real\" (Unicode/UTF-8) version. Curly quotes and apostrophes have been\nreplaced with the simpler \"typewriter\" form. The two Greek quotations\nhave been transliterated and shown between +marks+.]\n\n\n\n\n  The Augustan Reprint Society\n\n\n  _Critical Remarks on Sir Charles\n  Grandison, Clarissa, and Pamela_\n  (1754)\n\n\n  With an Introduction by\n  Alan Dugald McKillop\n\n\n  Publication Number 21\n  (Series IV, No. 3)\n\n\n  Los Angeles\n  William Andrews Clark Memorial Library\n  University of California\n  1950\n\n\n\n\n_GENERAL EDITORS_\n\n  H. RICHARD ARCHER, _Clark Memorial Library_\n  RICHARD C. BOYS, _University of Michigan_\n  EDWARD NILES HOOKER, _University of California, Los Angeles_\n  H. T. SWEDENBERG, JR., _University of California, Los Angeles_\n\n_ASSISTANT EDITORS_\n\n  W. EARL BRITTON, _University of Michigan_\n  JOHN LOFTIS, _University of California, Los Angeles_\n\n_ADVISORY EDITORS_\n\n  EMMETT L. AVERY, _State College of Washington_\n  BENJAMIN BOYCE, _University of Nebraska_\n  LOUIS I. BREDVOLD, _University of Michigan_\n  CLEANTH BROOKS, _Yale University_\n  JAMES L. CLIFFORD, _Columbia University_\n  ARTHUR FRIEDMAN, _University of Chicago_\n  SAMUEL H. MONK, _University of Minnesota_\n  ERNEST MOSSNER, _University of Texas_\n  JAMES SUTHERLAND, _Queen Mary College, London_\n\n\n\n\nINTRODUCTION\n\n\nThe present pamphlet was published in February 1754, after six volumes\nof _Sir Charles Grandison_ had appeared and about a month before the\nappearance of the seventh and last volume. Though _Grandison_ was\ntechnically anonymous, its authorship was generally known, and the\npamphlet refers to Richardson by name. Sale's bibliography gives further\ndetails (_Samuel Richardson: A\u00a0Bibliographical Record_, New Haven, 1936,\npp. 131-32), including the suggestion of the _Monthly Review_\n(X,\u00a0159-60) that the author was Alexander Campbell, who also wrote\n_A\u00a0Free and Candid Examination of Lord Bolingbroke's Letters on History_\n(1753). The pro-Bolingbroke and deistic sentiments of the _Critical\nRemarks_ lend color to this attribution. Nichols' _Literary Anecdotes_\n(II,\u00a0277) says under the year 1755 that William Bowyer printed a few\ncopies of two pamphlets on _Grandison_, one by Francis Plumer and one by\nDr. John Free. To Plumer is attributed _A\u00a0Candid Examination of the\nHistory of Sir Charles Grandison_ (April 1754; 3rd ed., 1755), and the\ninference might then be that Free was the author of the _Critical\nRemarks_, even though the date 1755 given by Nichols is not right, since\nthese two are the only known early _Grandison_ pamphlets. But Free's\northodox religious views seem to eliminate him as a possibility. Whoever\nthe author was, his references to Henry and Sarah Fielding are decidedly\nfriendly, and he speaks well of Mason, Gray, Dodsley, and Pope.\n\nThe _Remarks_ represents a type of pamphlet occasionally called forth by\nworks which engaged the general attention of the town, such as the great\nnovels of the period; thus before the _Grandison_ pamphlets we have\n_Pamela Censured_, _Lettre sur Pamela_, _An Examen of the History of Tom\nJones_, _An Essay on the New Species of Writing Founded by Mr.\nFielding_, and _Remarks on Clarissa_. Usually these fugitive essays are\nhostile to the work they discuss, and represent the attempt of some\nobscure writer to turn a shilling by exposing for sale a title page\nwhich might catch the eye with a well known name. The J.\u00a0Dowse who sold\nthe _Critical Remarks_ was an obscure pamphlet-shop proprietor, not a\nprominent bookseller. Richardson and his correspondents were of course\nirritated at both the _Grandison_ pieces: Mrs. Sarah Chapone was\nindignant at the _Critical Remarks_, venturing the absurd suggestion\nthat Fielding might be the author (Victoria and Albert Museum, Forster\nCollection, Richardson MSS., XIII, 1, ff. 102-03, letter of 6\u00a0April\n1754); and Lady Bradshaigh and Richardson considered the more favorable\n_Candid Examination_ an unfriendly work (Forster Collection, Richardson\nMSS., XI, ff. 98, 100-02). Yet these obscure publications give an\ninteresting view of some current approaches and reactions before opinion\nhas taken a set form, and help us to get access to the contemporary\nreading public.\n\nThe present author airs some cynical and skeptical views in religion and\nethics which are not of great critical interest. His ideas about\n\"sentimental unbelievers\" and \"political chastity,\" his simulated\ndisapproval of contemptuous references to the clergy, the attack on John\nHill's _Inspector_ to which he devotes his Postscript--these points\nare little to our purpose. As to literary opinions, he falls into the\nusual way of judging fiction by its supposed overt intellectual and\nmoral effects. His admiration for _Clarissa_ is based on his acceptance\nof the complete idealization of the heroine, and of Richardson's\ndeclared intention to show \"the distresses that may attend the\nmisconduct both of parents and children in relation to marriage.\" In\nformal literary criticism he is pompous and scholastic. He approves the\nplot of _Clarissa_ in terms of the _Iliad_, but judges subtle and\ncomplex characters by an over-simplified standard of decorum and\ncensures Lovelace as an intricate combination of Achilles and Ulysses!\nHis unnecessary labors to show that Richardson is not really Homeric\nillustrate the sterile application of epic canons to the novel that\nvitiates much early criticism of fiction.\n\nIn general, he represents the reader with pretensions to culture which\nmake him feel superior to Richardson's novels. He thinks they have been\nattracting too much attention, yet finds himself forced to attend to\nwhat he professes to despise. The stories are far too long, he\ncomplains, and Richardson pads them to increase the profits of\nauthorship. (The _Candid Examination_ concurs on this point, and both\nwriters agree that _Clarissa_ should have been in five volumes instead\nof eight.) The _Remarks_ echoes the common complaint that Richardson is\nresponsible for the flood of new fiction, and prophesies that his novels\nwill be merely the first in a succession of ephemeral best sellers. All\nin all, we have here a fairly common pattern of opinion: _Pamela_ is low\nand has no sound moral; _Grandison_ is tedious and excessively mannered;\n_Clarissa_ at its best must be admitted to be supreme, despite\nmoralistic objections to the Mother Sinclair scenes and to the character\nof Lovelace. The pamphleteer's silences are sometimes significant:\nPamela is not condemned as a scheming little minx, and he does not seem\nto be much interested in her; despite his approval of Fielding and his\npreference of Allworthy to Grandison, he shows little interest in the\nFielding-Richardson opposition, even omitting the Tom Jones-Grandison\nantithesis which seemed obvious to many; he passes over the admired\nItalian story, the madness of Clementina, and the issues raised by Sir\nCharles' proposed marriage with a Catholic; nor does he offer the\nfamiliar comment, soon to become a _clich\u00e9_, on the excessive\nidealization of Sir Charles.\n\nHis best points do not follow from his jejune critical principles,\nbut from close reading that forces him at times to admit that he is\ninterested even while he carps and cavils. His predictions about the\nlast volume of _Grandison_ show that the story has at least carried him\nalong. His admiration for the character of Clarissa, though based on his\napproval of idealization, is really a tribute to Richardson's art,\nand his qualification that Clarissa is \"rather too good, at least too\nmethodically so,\" is fair enough, as is the comment about Grandison's\n\"showy and ostentatious\" benevolence and his excessive variety of\naccomplishments. The judgment about Richardson's incessant emphasis on\nsex anticipates much later criticism, and is made at first hand, though\nconnected with the stock comment that modern tragedies dwell too\nexclusively on the passion of love. There is truth in the observation\nthat Mr. B-- and Lovelace think nothing can be done with women except by\nbribery, corruption, and terror, that Richardson is unable to describe a\nplausible seducer. The author of the _Candid Examination_ seems to take\nup this cue when he says of the same pair, \"I\u00a0am of Opinion, that\nneither of the two Gentlemen conducted themselves so, as to overcome an\nordinary Share of Virtue\" (p.\u00a024). Nevertheless the discussion in the\n_Critical Remarks_ is thrown out of balance by exaggerated talk about\nthe portrayal of licentious scenes.\n\nOne important observation is that _Grandison_ duplicates some of the\nprincipal characters in _Clarissa_: Charlotte Grandison is Anna Howe;\nher much-enduring husband Lord G-- is Mr. Hickman (the writer expands\nG-- to \"Goosecap\" on the model of Fielding's Mr. Booby); Pollexfen is\nLovelace. This is self-evident, but may have been suggested by the\nconversation in which Harriet Byron calls Charlotte \"a\u00a0very Miss Howe,\"\nwhile Charlotte refers to Lord G-- as \"a\u00a0very Mr. Hickman\" (_Grandison_,\n1754, II, 7-8). The _Candid Examination_, in a postscript commenting on\nthe last volume of _Grandison_, repeats the charge of duplication in a\nrather odd way: \"The Conduct and Behaviour of Sir _Charles_ and his\nLady, after the Marriage, is an Imitation of that of Mr. B-- and\n_Pamela_; but does not equal the Original\" (p.\u00a042).\n\nThe pamphleteer has more to say about Charlotte than about Harriet, Sir\nCharles, or Clementina, the characters with whom later criticism has\nbeen chiefly concerned. Charlotte's \"whimsical\" or \"arch\" way evidently\ngot on his nerves. He catches up a phrase which Harriet applies to her,\n\"dear flighty creature,\" and derisively repeats it several times.\nContemporary readers paid her considerable attention. The _Candid\nExamination_ names among the fine things in the book \"a\u00a0Profusion of Wit\nand Fancy in Lady G--'s Conversation and Letters,\" and thinks that\nHarriet at times treats her levity too severely (pp.\u00a06, 14-16). The\nauthor of _Louisa: Or, Virtue in Distress_ (1760) remarks that Lady G--\nis one of the most imitated of Richardson's characters--\"I have\nobserved that most of our modern novels abound with a lady G--\" (p.\u00a0x).\nThere were objections even among Richardson's admirers, however, as by\nMrs. Delany: \"Miss Grandison is sometimes diverting, has wit and humour,\nbut considering her heart is meant to be a good one, she too often\nbehaves as if it were stark naught\" (_Autobiography and Correspondence_,\nLondon, 1861, 1\u00a0Ser., III, 251). The evidence seems to show that early\nreaders of _Grandison_ did not isolate the principal characters, except\nperhaps Clementina, but considered them with due reference to the\nsecondary characters and to the whole social context in which they\nappear.\n\nFinally, this critic is irritated by the conversational and epistolary\nstyle which Richardson evolves in the process of \"writing to the\nmoment\"; he is particularly vexed at the coined or adapted words which\nare sometimes italicized and dwelt on as characteristic of an\nindividual. He cites only a few, such as Uncle Selby's _scrupulosities_,\nbut he has others in mind, both from _Grandison_ and from Lovelace's\nletters in _Clarissa_, and wonders whether such words as these will get\ninto the dictionary. (It\u00a0happened that Johnson was entering words from\n_Clarissa_ in his _Dictionary_ during these years.) He burlesques an\nepistle from Charlotte, slipping in a few of Lovelace's locutions as\nwell (pp.\u00a047-48; cf. _Grandison_, 1754, VI, 288). The author of the\n_Candid Examination_ distinguishes between what he considers the low\nmawkish talk of some of Richardson's characters, which he condemns\n(pp.\u00a011-12), and Richardson's freedom in coining words, which he\napproves (p.\u00a036). These slight instances may serve to remind us that\nmany of Richardson's early readers must have been keenly aware of his\ninnovations in style, and that these developments form an important link\nin the 1750's between Richardson and the further innovations of Sterne.\n\nThe present reproduction is made by permission from a copy in the\nUniversity of Michigan Library.\n\n  _Alan Dugald McKillop_\n  _The Rice Institute_\n\n\n\n\n  CRITICAL\n\n  REMARKS\n\n  ON\n\n  _Sir CHARLES GRANDISON,\n  CLARISSA and PAMELA._\n\n  ENQUIRING,\n\n  Whether they have a Tendency to corrupt\n  or improve the Public Taste and Morals.\n\n  IN A\n\n  LETTER to the AUTHOR.\n\n\n  By a LOVER of VIRTUE.\n\n\n  _LONDON:_\n\n  Printed for J. DOWSE, opposite _Fountain Court_\n  in the _Strand_. MDCCLIV.\n\n  [Price One Shilling.]\n\n\n\n\n[Decoration]\n\nCritical Remarks, _&c._\n\n\nSIR,\n\nI hope you will take nothing amiss that may be said in the\nfollowing remarks on your compositions; I\u00a0firmly believe\nthat your motive in writing them was a laudable intention to\npromote and revive the declining causes of religion and\nvirtue. And when I have said so much, I\u00a0have surely a right\nfrom you to the same favourable interpretation of my design,\nin publishing these Considerations on them, and endeavouring\nto shew how far you have fallen short of your commendable\npurpose.\n\nThat your writings have in a great measure corrupted our\nlanguage and taste, is a truth that cannot be denied. The\nconsequences abundantly shew it. By the extraordinary\nsuccess you have met with, if you are not to be reckoned a\nclassical author, there is certainly a very bad taste\nprevailing at present. Our language, though capable of great\nimprovements, has, I\u00a0imagine, been for some time on the\ndecline, and your works have a manifest tendency to hasten\nthat on, and corrupt it still farther. Generally speaking,\nan odd affected expression is observable through the whole,\nparticularly in the epistles of Bob Lovelace. His many\nnew-coin'd words and phrases, Grandison's _meditatingly_,\nUncle Selby's _scrupulosities_; and a vast variety of\nothers, all of the same Stamp, may possibly become Current\nin common Conversation, be imitated by other writers, or by\nthe laborious industry of some future compiler, transferred\ninto a Dictionary, and sanctioned by your great Authority.\nYour success has farther corrupted our taste, by giving\nbirth to an infinite series of other compositions all of the\nsame kind, and equally, if not more, trifling than your's.\u00a0A\ncatalogue of them would look like a Bible genealogy, and\nwere I to undertake the task of giving it, I\u00a0should be\nobliged to invoke the muse, as Homer does before he begins\nthe catalogue of the ships in his second Iliad. How long the\ncurrency of such compositions may continue, how many may be\nannually poured forth from the press, is more than any man\ncan say, without being endued with the spirit of prophesy.\nBut, without making any such pretensions, I\u00a0can foretel,\nthat if ever a good taste universally prevails, your\nromances, as well as all others, will be as universally\nneglected, and that in any event their fate will not be much\nbetter; for what recommends them to the notice of the\npresent age is, their novelty, and their gratifying an idle\nand insatiable curiosity. In a few years that novelty will\nwear off, and that Curiosity will be equally gratified by\nother Compositions, it may be, as trifling, but who will\nthen have the additional charm of novelty, to recommend\nthem. Such, Sir, must be the fate of all works which owe\ntheir success to a present capricious humor, and have not\nreal intrinsic worth to support them.\n\nShort-lived then as they are, and must be, in their own\nnature, it might be thought cruel to hasten them to the\ngrave, could that be effected by any thing I have in my\npower to say, if they did not prevent the success, and\nstifle in the birth, works which have a just title to life,\nfame and immortality. Human genius is pretty much the same\nin all ages and nations, but its exertion, and its\ndisplaying itself to advantage, depend on times, accidents,\nand circumstances. There are, no doubt, writers in the\npresent age, who, did they meet with proper encouragement,\nmight be capable of producing what would last to posterity,\nand be read and admired by them. We have some good poets,\nsuch as the authors of Elfrida, the Church-yard Elegy, and\nthe Poem on Agriculture; a\u00a0performance which would have been\nhighly valued in an Augustan age, and is the best, perhaps\nthe only Georgic in our language. By the great manner in\nwhich the author has executed the first part of his noble\nplan, he has shewn himself sufficiently able for the rest;\nbut by his not prosecuting it, I\u00a0imagine he has not met with\nthe deserved success. This may possibly be imputed to its\ncoming abroad at an improper time. I\u00a0remember it was first\nadvertised just when the Memoirs of Sir Charles Grandison\nwere appearing by piece-meal. This was a very injudicious\nstep, for who could be supposed to attend to any thing else,\nwhen the lovely Harriet Byron continued in suspence, when\nthe fate of Lady Clementina was undetermined, when it was\nnot yet settled, whether she was to marry Grandison, retire\nto a Nunnery, or continue crack-brain'd all her lifetime.\nAfter all, I\u00a0am well-pleased to see Grandison and Harriet\nfairly buckled. And I hope soon to hear, that the ceremony\nis performed between the Count de Belvedere and Lady\nClementina. I\u00a0am afraid there could have been no compleat\nhappiness in the matrimonial union of the English Gentleman\nand the Italian Lady. The marriage state may be aptly enough\ncompared to two fiddles playing in concert: if the one can\nsound no higher than Tweedle-dum, and the other no lower\nthan Tweedle-dee, there never can be any thing but a\nperpetual jarring discord and dissonance betwixt them. In\nthe same manner the difference in religious sentiments would\nhave been a great allay in the felicity of that illustrious\ncouple.\n\nI now proceed, Sir, to the principal business of this\naddress, which is, to enquire how far your writings have\ncontributed to promote the causes of religion and virtue,\nfor which, as you say, and I believe, they were chiefly\nintended.\n\nIt is, no doubt, the indispensable duty of every writer to\npromote, as far as lies in his power, in the society, of\nwhich he is a member, the advancement of virtue, especially\nthe moral and social duties of mutual good-will and\nuniversal benevolence. And as far as the established\nreligious system of a country has the same tendency, so far\nis every man, who writes a popular treatise, let his private\nsentiments, with respect to the pretensions it makes to\ntruth and a divine original, be what they will, obliged to\nrecommend it to the belief of the people. It is equally his\nduty, if not more so, to inculcate on their minds a\nreverence and regard for the established religious\ncorporation, and to avoid saying or doing any thing which\nmay subject them to ridicule and contempt. It must be owned,\nthat your conduct in these articles, especially the last,\ncannot be sufficiently commended. Your works are designed\nfor the perusal of people in all ranks, they have had an\nuniversal run, and in them you have not only shewn yourself\na pious Christian, and a good _Bible-scholar_, but you have\nmade all your heroines the same, and have besides introduced\nthe Characters of several pious and worthy clergymen, and\nrepresented them acting in very advantageous lights. For\nthese things, as I observed just now, you cannot be more\nthan enough applauded; and no doubt your writings have in so\nfar produced a good effect; but I am afraid you have not\nacted consistently throughout, for you have not only brought\nin your hero Lovelace, but Mr. Moden, the only virtuous male\ncharacter in your Clarissa, expressing contempt for the\nclergy. Now, in my opinion, a\u00a0virtuous man, and we have had\nseveral instances of that kind among the ancients, may very\nconsistently despise the public religion, but he will never\nallow himself to bring the order belonging to it under\ncontempt. In fact, it is the clergy alone who render a\npublic religion useful and valuable, let its divine original\nbe a truth never so evident, it could have no influence upon\nthe people, unless they should be catechized and instructed\nin it by the clergy; and though we should suppose it\ndownright nonsense, yet that order of men must always be\nreckoned a venerable and necessary institution, in as far as\nthey are teachers of moral duties to the people, and\nrecommend to them the practice of virtue, either by precept\nor example.\n\nAnother thing in which I humbly conceive you have been in\nthe wrong, is this: you constantly express a great virulence\nagainst those whom you call sentimental unbelievers, and\ntake all opportunities to render them the objects of public\nodium and detestation. You cannot but be sensible, that such\na conduct is contrary to the first and great duties of\nsocial virtue. Ought you to quarrel with any man because he\nis taller or shorter, fairer or blacker than yourself? And\nyet we can no more help our differing in speculative\nopinions than in stature or complexion. If you happen to\nfeel the knowledge and perception of divine things\nsupernaturally implanted on your mind, rejoice and be happy,\nbut let not your Wrath arise against those who are not blest\nwith the same sensations. Would you be angry with any man\nbecause his eye-sight cannot distinguish objects at such a\ngreat distance as yours? Why then quarrel with another for a\ndeficiency of the same kind in spiritual optics? No doubt\nyou will assert, that the truth of the present religious\nsystem may be proved by a long connected chain of\ndemonstrative arguments. But if I might be allowed, without\noffence, to give my opinion in this matter, as far as you\nare concerned, I\u00a0should say, that such an assertion is in\nyou unbecoming, as well as the conduct you observe in\nconsequence unjust and imprudent. The assertion is in you\nunbecoming, because, whatever you may think, the question,\nwhether there was ever a divine revelation given, or a\nmiracle wrought, or whether, supposing such things done,\nthey can be proved to the conviction of a rational\nunprejudiced man, by moral evidence, and human testimony,\nrequires more learning and judgment than you are possessed\nof, to determine with any precision. It requires, indeed,\nthe greatest and most universal skill and knowledge in\nnature and her philosophy, which has not come to your share,\nas appears from your writings, where, as may easily be\nperceived, you retail all that little you have pickt up. The\nmore knowledge a man has, he will always be the less\nassuming; and a positive stiffness, especially in\ncommonly-received opinions, is a certain sign and constant\nattendant of ignorance. Socrates, the wisest man among the\nwisest people, after all his researches declared, that all\nthat he knew was, that he knew nothing. Cicero, the greatest\nmaster of reason that ever lived, was a professed academic\nor sceptist. And a learned and virtuous modern, whom I\nforbear to name, in a letter to an intimate friend,\nconfessed, that the more he thought, he found the more\nreason to doubt, and had always been more successful in\ndiscovering what was false, than what was true. Those\nillustrious three, learned, virtuous, and lovers of their\ncountry, to whom it would be difficult, perhaps impossible,\nto add a fourth, were all sentimental unbelievers, and all\nat the same time inculcated a reverence and regard to the\nestablished religions of their respective countries. Nay,\nall sentimental unbelievers, had they not been provoked by\nthe ill-judged bigotry of their adversaries, would have\nadhered unanimously to the same maxims. If their unbelief\nproceeds from a consciousness of the weakness and limited\nstate of the human understanding, the constant result of\ntrue learning and philosophy, they will be the more firmly\nconvinced of the great utility and absolute necessity of a\npublic form of worship, and a religious corporation, and\nuniformly square their conduct accordingly. It was therefore\nunjust, as well as imprudent, in you, Sir, who are a popular\nwriter, and whose works are read by every body, to endeavour\nto render sceptical free-thinkers, from their own principles\nthe fastest and sincerest friends to religion in general,\nthe objects of odium and detestation to the believers in\nthat particular religion, which happens to be at present\nestablished by law. This, Sir, and I shall say no more,\nI\u00a0hope may be said, from general principles, without offence\nto any party, without determining or declaring my own\nsentiments, which are in the right, and which in the wrong,\nwith respect to the truth of their opinions.\n\nI now proceed to the last thing proposed in these remarks,\nto examine how far your compositions have a natural tendency\nto advance virtue. They are all strictly dramatical, and\ntherefore, whether they have a good or a bad tendency, they\nmust exert themselves with a stronger influence on the minds\nof those who are affected by them. In all works of this\nkind, in order to make them truly valuable and useful, all,\nat least one of these three things ought to be done. First,\nby the constitution of the plot or the fable, some great and\nuseful moral ought to be enforced and recommended. In the\nsecond place, the characters which are introduced ought to\nbe so contrived, that the readers should be induced to\nimitate their virtues, or avoid their vices. Or, lastly,\nsome one great moral virtue ought to be inculcated, by\nmaking it the characteristic of the Hero, or the chief\nperson in the dramatic work. In these, as in every other\nspecies of poetry and composition, the divine Homer has\nexcelled all other writers, he reigns unrivalled in them\nall, and will for ever be without a competitor; insomuch,\nthat one certain way of judging the merit or demerit of all\nother authors, is, to enquire how near they have approached,\nor how far they have fallen short of this standard of\nperfection in writing. I\u00a0shall now examine how far you, in\nyour several performances, have succeeded, with respect to\nthese articles, in the same order wherein they are set down.\nI\u00a0have perused your late work, Grandison, carefully, and I\nhope impartially, with this view, and for my Heart I cannot\nso much as perceive the least shadow of either plot, fable,\nor action. If there are any, they certainly lie far out of\nthe reach of my gross observation. Obvious they are not,\nwhich they ought to be to the most common reader. It may,\nindeed, be said, that no certain judgment can be formed of\nit, in that respect, till the whole is compleated. But it is\nno difficult matter to make probable conjectures about the\ncontents of the volume still in embrio. We shall probably be\nentertained with a description of the nuptials between Lady\nClementina and the Count de Belvedere; that happy couple,\nwith Signor Jeronymo, and the rest of the Porretta family,\nwill certainly pay a visit to Grandison and his admired\nHarriet; Beauchamp will be married to _that rogue_ Emily, in\nwhom he already _meditates his future wife_; _the good\ndoctor_ Bartlet may possibly pick up the dowager Lady\nBeauchamp; but if the dowager Lady should chuse a younger\nbedfellow, a\u00a0match may be made up between him and _old aunt_\nNell; or if _old aunt_ Nell should continue obstinately\ndetermined against matrimony, the _good doctor_ and\n_grandmama_ Shirley may go to church together. And now, Sir,\nthough all these desirable events should be happily\naccomplished, I\u00a0should still be of the same opinion; nor can\nI see any moral that could be drawn from them, unless it be\nthis, that men and women, old and young, after a certain\nceremony is performed, may go to bed together, without shame\nor scandal, or any fear of being called to account for so\ndoing by the churchwardens. The plot and fable of your\nPamela may indeed be easily enough discovered. They consist\nin Mr. B.'s attempts to debauch his beautiful waiting-maid;\nin her resistance, and their happy nuptials. If we look for\na moral, we shall find the only one that can be extracted\nout of it to be very ridiculous, useless, and impertinent;\nit appears to be this, that when a young gentleman of\nfortune cannot obtain his ends of a handsome servant girl,\nhe ought to marry her; and that the said girl ought to\nresist him, in expectation of that event. Thus it is\nmanifest, that these two compositions are equally below\ncriticism, in this article, and, to do you justice, it must\nbe confessed, that your Clarissa is as much above it. When\nconsidered in this light, it seems to be entirely Homerical.\nThat divine poet, in his Iliad, has inculcated by one fable,\nand in the continuation of one action, two great and noble\nmorals. The first is, that discord among chiefs or allies\nengaged in a confederacy, ruins their common designs, and\nrenders them unsuccessful; and the second, that concord and\nagreement secure them prosperity in all their undertakings.\nIn the same manner, in the first part of Clarissa, we find\nthe bad consequences of the cruel treatment of parents\ntowards their children, and forcing their inclinations in\nmarriage; and in the second part, we see a fine example of\nthe pernicious effects of a young lady's reposing confidence\nor engaging in correspondence with a man of profligate and\ndebauched principles. I\u00a0do not at present recollect any\ncomposition which, view'd in this light, can be compared\nwith the Iliad and Clarissa. The morals of the first are of\nthe utmost importance in public life, and those of the last\nin private life. If the little states and republicks of\nGreece, for whom Homer's poems were originally calculated,\nhad adhered uniformly to their maxims, they would have been\ninvincible, and must have subsisted to this day in all their\nglory and splendor. In the same manner, if the morals\ncontained, and so admirably enforced by example, in your\nClarissa, had their due weight, a\u00a0vast variety of mischiefs\nand miseries in private life would be prevented. There is\nnothing in which parents are apter to stretch their\nauthority too far, than in the article of marriage; there is\nnothing in which they pay less regard to the happiness of\ntheir children; nothing in which they allow less to the\ninfluence of passion and inclination in them; and nothing in\nwhich they are more sway'd by the dirty grovling passions of\nvanity, pride, and avarice, themselves. On the other hand,\nthere is nothing in which young ladies, even of the greatest\nmodesty and discretion, more readily fall into errors. It is\npretty certain, that where they are allowed freely to follow\ntheir own biass, they generally prefer either real or\nreputed rakes, to men of a regular life and more sober\ndeportment. I\u00a0have often been puzzled in endeavouring to\naccount for this conduct in the female world, so entirely\ncontrary to what all of them think their real and most\nvaluable interests. I\u00a0have sometimes been tempted to impute\nit to the truth of this satyrical maxim in the poet,\n\n  That _every woman is at heart a rake_,\n\nand that, custom and education having deterred them from the\npractice, they cannot help loving the theory in themselves,\nand preferring the practice in others. But I rather incline\nto attribute it to a cruel and unjust policy in the other\nsex, who have deceived and bubbled them in this, as well as\nseveral other articles, and have persuaded them of the truth\nof this notable maxim, that rakes make the best husbands,\nthan which, as experience abundantly testifies, nothing can\nbe more false. A\u00a0rake, indeed, may be a good husband while\nthe honey-moon lasts, for so long, perhaps, may novelty have\na charm; but when that is ended, the lust of variety, the\ndistinguishing characteristic of a rake, haunts him\nincessantly, like a ghost, and soon extinguishes all his\nprinciples of love, justice, and generosity. It is true,\nindeed, the proverb goes, that a reformed rake makes the\nbest husband. It may be so, but then it is a truth of equal\nimportance with this, that a pick-pocket going to the\ngallows is an honest man. His hands are tied behind him, and\nhe has it not in his power to be otherwise; in the same\nmanner a reformed rake is honest, because he has lost the\nability to be otherwise, and he naturally fondles and doats\nupon his wife, that she may overlook deficiencies in more\nessential articles. He acts entirely from the same\nprinciples with those profuse and liberal old keepers, who\nare said to pay for what they cannot\u00a0do.\n\nShould we now examine how you have succeeded in contriving\nyour characters, so as to be fit objects of imitation, if\nvirtuous, and if vicious, so as to be proper examples for\ndeterring others from the like practices, we shall find the\nprincipal ones extremely faulty, generally quite destitute\nof poetical probability, and in a word, far short of the\nHomeric standard. Homer's characters are for the most part\ndrawn beyond the life; but the art with which he has reduced\nthem to truth, and probability, is surprising. He has\nprodigiously exaggerated the bodily strength of Ajax, but\nthen he has rendered all probable, by representing him of\ndull and heavy intellects. For it is a fact, that, with\nbulky unwieldy force, we generally connect the idea of a\nslow understanding. How consistently prudent is Ulysses,\nthro' the whole of his character; we never see him err thro'\nrashness, but rather commit faults, thro' an over caution.\nHow wonderfully are we reconciled to the great garrulity of\nthe venerable Nestor, which would be inexcusable, did we not\nreflect, at the same time, on his extreme old age, of which\nthe poet never fails to remind us? How readily do we excuse\nthe ferocity of Achilles, when we reflect that the generous\nyouth prefers a short life, with fame and reputation, to a\nlength of days, with peace and happiness? How artfully are\nwe prevented from being shocked at his cruelty, in\nslaughtering without distinction, or remorse, all who come\nin his way? When we are told that he himself is acting under\nthe certainty of meeting his death before the Trojan Wall?\nIn short, Homer is possessed of this peculiar secret, to\ncontrive and add such circumstances that render all his\ncharacters probable, and to blend vices and virtues of a\nsimilar quality so together, as to render them all uniformly\nconsistent. And now tho' I\u00a0confess, with pleasure, that\nyou are far from being destitute of merit, in some of\nthe characters you draw, yet you seem to be intirely\nunacquainted with this secret. In order to illustrate my\nassertion, I\u00a0shall run thro' your principal characters in a\ncursory and desultory manner.\n\nIn Grandison, you have endeavoured to give an example of\nuniversal goodness and benevolence. But I am afraid you have\nstrained and stretched that character too far; you have\nfurnished him with too great a variety of accomplishments,\nsome of them destructive, at least not so consistent with\nthe principal and most shining virtue. _The man is every\nthing_, as Lucy or Harriet says; which no man ever was, or\nwill be. Homer in the Odyssey, and in the character of\nEuem\u00e6us, has given an example of universal benevolence; but\nthen he represents him an entire rustic, living constantly\nin the country, shunning all public concourse of men, the\ncourt especially, and never going thither, but when obliged\nto supply the riotous luxury and extravagance of the\nsuitors. Mr. Fielding has imitated these circumstances, as\nfar as was consistent with our manners, in the character of\nAllworthy, and has with admirable judgment denied him an\nuniversity education, made him a great lover of retirement,\nseldom absent from his country seat, never at the metropolis\nbut when called by business, and constantly leaving it, when\nthat was over. The ingenious authoress of David Simple,\nperhaps the best moral romance that we have, in which there\nis not one loose expression, one impure, one unchaste idea;\nfrom the perusal of which, no man can rise unimproved, has\nrepresented, her hero, a\u00a0character likewise of universal\nbenevolence, agreeably to the part he was to act; of tender\nyears, quite unimproved by education, unexperienced, and\nignorant of the ways of the world. Should we now consider\nthe matter a little deeply, we shall find a reason in nature\nfor the practice of these just painters of men and manners.\nA\u00a0human creature, in a simple unimproved state, is naturally\ngenerous and benevolent; but when he comes abroad into the\nworld, and observes the universal depravity of morals, and\nthe narrow selfishness that every where prevail, according\nto his particular temper or circumstances, he is either\ncontaminated by the example, or contracts a misanthropical\ndisposition, and hates or despises the greatest part of his\nspecies. There may be, and no doubt there are, men who have\nseen the world, who have been conversant, even in courts,\nduring their whole lives, who yet have retained and\nexercised humane and benevolent dispositions; but such\ncharacters are very rare, and, for the reasons above\nspecified, never can be poetically probable. Such, Sir, is\nyour Grandison; he seems never to have enjoyed retirement,\nto have been abroad almost all his life-time, to have seen\nall the courts in Europe, and been conversant, with the\ngreat, rich, and powerful, in all nations. You represent him\nlikewise to be a man universally learned, and tell us, at\nthe same time, in capital letters, that SIR CH. GRAN. is a\nCHRISTIAN; and that too, in the strictest and most bigotted\nsense of the word; for he refuses the woman he loves, for a\ndifference in religious principles. This, in my humble\nopinion, is likewise an inconsistency, for universal\nlearning naturally leads to scepticism, and the most useful,\nas well as solid branch of human knowledge, consists in\nknowing how little can be known. There are several other\ninconsistencies in his character, particularly in some of\nhis duelling stories; besides, at any rate, his benevolence\nhas something showy and ostentatious in it; nothing in short\nof that graceful and beautiful nature which appears in\nFielding's Allworthy.\n\nThe character of Lovelace is yet more inconsistent, still\nmore deficient in poetical probability, and indeed intirely\ncontradictory to Homer and nature. In all Homer's works,\nthere are not two characters between whom there is a greater\ncontrast and opposition, than between those of Achilles and\nUlysses. They enjoy no quality in common, but that of\nvalour; and the valour of the one is as different from that\nof the other, as can well be imagin'd; for they all along\npartake of their general characters, and are consistent with\nthem. But you, Sir, who, in the mouth of Harriet Byron and\nthat _dear flighty creature_ Lady G.\u00a0sometimes take upon you\nto criticize that great master of nature, shew that you have\neither never studied him, or profited very little by him;\nfor in this one character of Lovelace, you have united these\ntwo dissimilar and discordant characters of Achilles and\nUlysses; you have given him all the fierceness, cruelty, and\ncontempt of laws, impetuosity, rashness, in short, all the\nfurious ungovernable passions of the one, and have at the\nsame time provided him with all the cunning, craft,\ndissimulation, and command over his passions, which so much\ndistinguish the other. How to reconcile to probability, or\neven to possibility, the existence of such opposite and\ncontradictory qualities in one human bosom, is a task which\nI leave to you.\n\nThe fine, or rather the _naughty gentleman_, in your Pamela,\nto whom Mr. Fielding very properly gives the sirname of\nBooby, is indeed one of the greatest bubbles, and blunderers\nthat one can meet withal. You have informed us, that he had\nbeen a great rake, and had debauched several women; 'tis\nwell you have done so, but he certainly had made little\nproficiency in that laudable science, for, from his whole\nbehaviour towards his Pamela, one should be apt to think him\nthe meerest novice in the world. He opens trenches before\nher properly enough, by giving her silk stockings and fine\ncloaths to feed her pride and vanity; but when he comes to\nmake a more direct attack in the summer-house, how\nsheepishly does he act, and what blunders does he not\ncommit? He attempts to kiss her, the girl, as is natural,\nstruggles, and grows angry; he lets her go, and bribes her,\nwith five guineas, to keep the secret. This was knocking his\nproject in the head at once; and had he been guilty of no\nother blunders, as he was of innumerable, was sufficient to\nruin his cause with her for ever. He was not to expect, that\na girl, piously educated, would surrender at the very first,\nespecially to a summons given in so blunt and indelicate a\nmanner; on the contrary, he ought to have laid his account\nwith meeting a good deal of anger and resistance; to have\nborn all, with patience, and laughed off his attempt for an\ninnocent frolic; and if she threatened to inform Mrs.\nJervis, to have bidden her do so, and told her, that he\nwould kiss Mrs. Jervis and her both. In which case she never\nwould have opened her lips about the matter; in every\nsucceeding attempt, he would have met with less and less\nresistance, till at last he might have accomplished his\ndesires, before Miss Pamela had certainly known what he\nwould be at. But by his offering to bribe her to silence, he\nbetrayed all his designs, and informed her she had a secret\nto keep, which unless she had been constitutionally vicious,\nit was imposible for her not to disclose. Mr. Booby shews\nlikewise the utmost ignorance of human nature, in thinking\nto gain his ends with a young and innocent girl by the force\nof money. All young girls are taught to put a value on their\nvirginity, and unless debauched by their own sex, they never\nwill part with it, but to those they like. None but\nwell-disciplin'd ladies of the town are to be gained upon by\nmeer money; and Mr. Booby, by the whole of his conduct,\nappears to be nothing but a downright Covent-garden rake. He\nwas resolved to have Pamela, and marriage was indeed the\nonly way left for him. This your first performance concludes\nwith that happy event, and having sold well, I\u00a0imagine you\nwas induced to continue the story. But had I undertaken that\ntask, without violating the probability or the consistency\nof the characters, I\u00a0should have introduced Parson Williams\nvery fairly making a cuckold of Booby, and providing him\nwith an heir to his estate, which is the way all such\nBoobies ought to be treated, and a proper catastrophe for\nall such preposterous matches.\n\nYour three Heroines are, Pamela, Harriet, and Clarissa,\nladies all renowned for chastity and _Bible-scholarship_.\nThe chastity of the first was from beginning to end never\nwell attackt, and the defence she made is so far from being\nextraordinary, that had she surrendered at discretion, it\nought to have been reckoned miraculous. There is nothing\nvery characteristic about Harriet, yet is she a good sort of\na girl enough, especially as times go. _The men are sunk,\nand the women barely swim_, saith the lively Charlotte\nGrandison. But the character of Clarissa is, indeed,\nadmirable throughout the whole. Nature and propriety are not\nonly strictly observed, but we see the greatest nobleness of\nsoul, generosity of sentiments, filial affection, delicacy,\nmodesty, and every female virtue, finely maintained and\nconsistently conspicuous all along. The circumstances which\ninduced her noble and generous spirit to contract a liking\nfor Lovelace, are finely imagin'd; her delicacy and reserve,\nher disgust at his teazing ways, after she was in his power,\nare naturally to be expected from a woman of her superior\naccomplishments. There is something excessively pathetic, and\naccomplishments. There is something excessively pathetic, and\neven sublime, in her first address to him, after she was\nbetrayed; her constant refusal of his proffer'd hand, her\nresignation to her fate, and her behaviour to her\nhard-hearted relations, are all equally noble, and all\nnatural in a Clarissa. Her character, in short, is such,\nthat unless one should be hunting for faults, scarce any can\nbe found; and perhaps it is owing to such a disposition in\nme, that I cannot help observing she is rather too good, at\nleast too methodically so: The division of her time, and her\ndiary had been better omitted; all such things detract from\nthe nature and simplicity of a character. The characters of\nher family are finely marked and distinguished, and well\nadapted for bringing on the catastrophe. There is something\nlikewise extremely noble and generous in the friendship\nbetween Clarissa and Miss Howe. But I must here observe,\nthat in this, your capital performance, you seem in a good\nmeasure to have exhausted your invention with respect to\ncharacters. For instance, that _dear flighty creature_ Lady\nG.\u00a0is nothing else but a second edition of _Madam Howe's\nlively daughter_. They are both wits, and have both high\nnotions of female prerogative, and the pre-eminence of their\nown sex over the other; they had both like to have run away\nwith too worthless fellows, and both afterwards treated two\nhonest well-meaning men, during the time of their courtship,\nlike dogs; and both, I\u00a0imagine, for all these reasons, will\nbe great favourites with the female part of your readers.\nPollexfen and his crew very much resemble Lovelace and his\nBeelzebubs; and Grandmamma Shirley is nothing else but a\n_second mamma_ Horton; as Lord Goosecap is another Hickman.\n\nIt would take up too much time to animadvert upon all the\nrest of your male and female characters. I\u00a0shall only\nobserve in general, that you seem to have succeeded better\nin your subordinate ones, than in the principal; the divine\nClarissa, as you justly call her, always excepted. Though\nsome are faulty, yet many appear to be well marked and\ndistinguished.\n\nThe third and last thing that is to be done in an epic or\ndramatic composition is, to inculcate some one great moral\nvirtue, by making it the characteristic of the hero or the\nchief person. Thus Homer, in his Odyssey, proposes Ulysses\nas an example of prudence he professes to sing,\n\n  +Ton andra polutropon.+\n\n  _The man for wisdom's various arts renown'd._\n\nAnd Virgil, in the person of \u00c6neas, gives an example of\npiety to the Gods, he sings the pious \u00c6neas. In the same\nmanner, in the memoirs of Sir Cha. Grandison you propose an\nexample of benevolence, and in Pamela of chastity; you\ncelebrate the benevolent Grandison and the chaste Pamela.\nI\u00a0have already, in the two foregoing articles, given my\nopinion sufficiently of the first, and shall here say\nsomewhat more of the latter, and enquire a little into the\nnature of chastity.\n\nThe influence of custom, habit, and education, over human\nminds is prodigious and inconceivable. It is so great and\nextensive, that perhaps it is utterly impossible to\ndetermine what principles or conceptions we receive from\nnature, and what from the other sources. All women of honour\nand condition among civilized nations imagine, that what are\ncalled virgin delicacy and reserve, female chastity and\nmodesty, are not only fit and proper, but natural and\ninherent in their sex. Fit and proper they certainly are, as\nthe universal consent of all ages and nations shews; and\nbesides, that fitness and propriety is founded on the nature\nof things, but natural and inherent they are not, as is\nequally manifest from experience. In ancient Greece, where\nthe women were remarkable both for continence before\nmarriage, and fidelity after it, customs prevailed\ndiametrically opposite to all our most established notions\nof modesty and delicacy. It was customary among them, for\nthe women to perform the offices of rubbers, sweaters, and\ncuppers to the men, when bathing; nor was this the\nemployment of the servants, or female slaves, but of young\nladies of the highest rank and quality. Thus, in the third\nOdyssey, when Telemachus is entertained at Nestor's palace,\nhis youngest daughter,\n\n  _Sweet Polycaste, takes the pleasing toil,_\n  _To bathe the prince, and pour the fragrant oil._\n\nHow would Clarissa's delicacy have been shock'd and\ndisgusted, had brother James laid his commands upon her to\nrub down Mr. Solmes! nor would that office have been in the\nleast less disagreeable, had she been to perform it on the\nhandsome person of Bob Lovelace; she would have sooner died,\nthan have done it to either. Again, in the sixth Odyssey,\nwhen Ulysses, awakened by the noise which Nausicaa and her\nnymphs make at their sports, comes quite naked out of her\nhiding place; the nymphs, indeed, run away, not at the sight\nof a naked man, but for fear of an enemy, while the princess\nstays, and, without betraying the least disgust or\nuneasiness at his appearance, holds a long conversation with\nhim, calls back her fugitive companions, and reprimands them\nvery sharply for their timorousness. Had such an adventure,\nSir, happened to your Harriet, how do you think she would\nhave behaved? she who was not able, without the utmost\npalpitation, nor unless her trembling hand had been guided,\nto sign the marriage articles with her beloved Grandison.\nInstead of giving assistance to the naked hero, she would\nhave wanted help herself; the _dear creature_ would have\nfainted away. Among the northern nations in America, who\nlead a simple life, and where conjugal fidelity is very\nstrictly observed, it is customary for parents to provide\ntheir guests with companions for the night in the persons of\ntheir daughters. They reckon it a necessary branch of\nhospitable duty, and the young ladies think themselves\naffronted, if their embraces are rejected. Had Pamela and\nClarissa been bred up near the great lake of Hurons, they\nwould have gone to bed to Booby and Lovelace, without any\nscruple, had they come to their father's houses, in the\ncharacter of English envoys; and had an Iroquois damsel\nreceived her education in Northamptonshire, under the wings\nof grandmamma Shirley, and kept company constantly with Lucy\nand Nancy Selby, she would have been as delicate as Harriet\nherself. From whence does this mighty difference proceed,\namong creatures of the same species, all endued with the\nsame passions, appetites, and desires? Undoubtedly from\ncustom, habit, and education; and the reason that women of\ncandid and open dispositions, who can freely examine into\nthemselves, are never sensible of it, and cannot make the\ndiscovery, is this; they feel these principles immoveably\nrooted in their minds, and they had received them so early,\nthat they never remember the time when they had them not.\nThis chastity, this delicacy, _&c._ may probably enough be\ntermed political; some people have reckoned it the meer\ninvention of the statesman or politician; but, as I observed\nbefore, its fitness and propriety are founded on the nature\nof things and of human society. In all societies there are\nfamilies, inheritances, and distinctions of ranks and\norders. To keep these separate and distinct, to prevent them\nfrom falling into confusion, on all which the good oeconomy\nand internal happiness of the state much depend, the\nchastity and continence of women are absolutely and\nindispensably necessary. Therefore it has been universally\nagreed, to educate the sex in the principles leading to that\ncontinence, and to make their honour and reputation consist\nin adhering to them. In women of condition, in short in all\nabove a certain rank, the inconveniencies of deviating from\nthese principles are always very observable, and sensibly\nfelt; particular families are hurt, orders are confused,\ninheritances are uncertain, the example is bad, and the\nscandal great. Therefore in all such we perceive this\npolitical chastity strongly to prevail; but in the rank\nbelow them we find it, for obvious reasons, exerting no\ngreat influence. However it has so far exerted its\ninfluence, that it has universally become customary for the\nwoman to deny, and of course it must be the prerogative of\nthe man to ask. This has rendered a greater indulgence\nnecessary, and introduced a greater latitude in the practice\nof the male sex, with respect to amours. But I am afraid\nthey have stretched this indulgence too far, indeed far\nbeyond what the oeconomy of nature requires, and much\nfarther than is confident with public utility. I\u00a0may\nlikewise add, that the fair sex have been too remiss, that\nthey have suffered themselves to be outwitted, and allowed\nthe other sex to carry this inequality in their manners to\ntoo great a length. Nothing certainly appears more\ninconsistent, than that the same action which brings the\ngreatest disgrace and ruin, the utmost shame and infamy on\nthe woman, should not at all affect the man, though the most\nguilty, as he is always the temptor and seducer. Nay, it is\nunjust to the highest degree; for compliance and weakness\nare the worst that can be laid to the charge of the one,\nwhereas the other can seldom be excused from premeditated\nvillainy. Many undergo capital punishments daily for crimes\nmuch less attrocious in their own nature, and much less\ndestructive to the interests of Society. For what can be in\nitself more infamous, than to rob a creature of its most\nvaluable possession, and then abandon it to a life of vice\nand a death of misery? If there be in nature a tender and\ndelicate passion, love is certainly such. Yet how different\nand inconsistent is the conduct of the sexes in this\narticle. A\u00a0man who loves a woman with an honourable\nintention, rejects her with abhorrence, if he has a\nsuspicion that she has been blown upon by another,\nespecially a person of a subordinate rank. A\u00a0woman again,\nwho is addressed by the man she loves, makes no objection,\nand feels little uneasiness, even at the certainty of his\nprostituting his person to all the women of the town. Nay,\nif he has the reputation of having ruined two or three of\nrank and character, so far from hurting, that generally\nrecommends him to her favour. These are facts incontestable,\nthey can be accounted for by no principle in nature, they\nare quite contrary to all the maxims of delicacy, but prove\nat the same time the prodigious force of habit and custom.\nThis is a thing undoubtedly wrong, and perhaps the women are\nrather more to blame than the men. In all general affairs,\nindeed, in all matters of consequence, the male sex must\never lead, and the other follow; but surely they have\nsomething in their power, were they to exert themselves.\nThey ought never, by a silent approbation, to encourage\nlooseness and profligacy among the men, and thus be\naccessary to the prostitution of numbers in the lower rank\nof their own sex; and if they have it not in their power to\nreform their gallants altogether, they can at least make\nthem throw the mask of decency over their vices.\n\nThere is another species of chastity, which may properly\nenough be stiled religious, and is equally obligatory on all\nranks; but is only found among those nations where the\nChristian system is established. The founder of our religion\nwas himself a bright and a shining pattern of this virtue,\nand he and his immediate disciples recommended and enforced\nit strongly, both by precept and example. It was this,\nchiefly, that, in the first ages of the church, filled the\nmountains and desarts with hermits of all sexes and ages; it\nwas this that gave rise to the religious orders of monks and\nnuns, and the celibacy of the clergy, which still subsist in\nPopish countries. But these consequences were pernicious to\nthe publick good, they discouraged marriage, and established\nthat ecclesiastical tyranny, under which all Europe groaned\nbefore the reformation and the resurrection of letters. But\nas these precepts and examples are now applied in protestant\ncountries, they are useful and proper; they are only applied\nto recommend conjugal fidelity and continence before\nmarriage, and thus in some measure supply the deficiencies\nof the political chastity, among women of the lower rank, to\nwhom that does not extend. And even though it were to be\ngranted, that Christianity is no divine institution, yet, on\naccount of this and several other excellent maxims it\ncontains and strongly enforces, in common with other\nreligions, its divine origin ought to be inculcated on the\nminds of those people who can believe it. But though this\nkind of chastity is more comprehensive, yet its influence,\nas experience shews us, is infinitely weaker than that of\nthe other. I\u00a0believe it may be said, with justice, that\nthere are fewer unchaste women, even in proportion to their\nnumbers, among those of rank and condition, than there are\nchaste among these of an inferior order, though the lives of\nthe first are generally lazy and luxurious, and much the\ngreatest part of their reading lies among modern plays,\nnovels and romances, which, instead of curbing and\nrestraining, have a manifest tendency to heighten and\ninflame their passions. All these circumstances shew the\nsuperior efficacy of the political over the religious\nchastity. From the nature of things it must be so, for the\npunishments of a future state are objects too remote to have\nany great weight in deterring people from yielding to the\nimportunate sollicitations of a present powerful passion.\nWhen once a woman has got the length to undervalue the\nimmediate shame, ruin and disgrace she has to dread from\nbeing detected in an amour, religious motives never can\nrestrain her from indulging her inclinations. Far be it from\nme, by any thing here said, to derogate in the least from\nthe utility of this great and fundamental article in all\nreligions, the commonly received doctrine of rewards and\npunishments in a future state. On the contrary, I\u00a0am\nsensible of its utility in the highest degree, and that too\nin cases where it is most necessary, by inciting men to\nvirtues to which no temporal rewards are annexed, and\ndeterring them from crimes and vices, where they have no\ntemporal punishments to dread, or where, from the secrecy of\nthe commission, they have hopes to escape the punishments\nprovided for them by the laws. In all cases of the last\nkind, thought and deliberation are required, to contrive and\nput them in execution; the mind is then cool, at least not\ntransported out of itself by hurrying passion, and has time\nand leisure to weigh and reflect on every circumstance;\nreligious motives, no doubt, then exert their influence,\nawaken fears and terrors, and keep many faithful and honest,\nwho would otherwise yield to the temptations of revenge,\nambition, and interest. For these reasons, this doctrine can\nnever be too sedulously inculcated on the minds of the\npeople by their public teachers, nor represented to their\nimaginations in too lively or too affecting colours.\n\nIt is very possible, Sir, that a great deal of this\nphilosophy may lie too deep for your conception; it is\npossible, that not understanding, or not being able to\nanswer it, you may incline to fix an odium on it, and\nalledge, that it has an affinity with that of Hobbes and\nMandevill. But granting it were so, which it is not, truth\nought only to be regarded, and names to have no weight in a\ndispute of this kind. I\u00a0wanted to say something on female\nchastity and delicacy, about which you and your heroines\nmake such a rout and a pother, and I shall now apply it to\nexamine how far your Pamela is a proper example of either.\nIn the first place, she was not of that rank or situation in\nlife which could entitle her to those notions of honour and\nvirtue, which are extremely proper and becoming in Clarissa\nor Harriet. In the next place, the principles which she\nimbibed from her religious education under Booby's lady\nmother never could have been sufficient to preserve her\nvirtue, as it is called, had it been properly besieged. No\ndoubt their may have been servant girls who have withstood\nthe earnest sollicitations of great 'squires, their masters;\nbut then they have either disliked the persons, their\naffections have been pre-ingaged, or, like Pamela, they have\nhad a Booby to deal with. In short, your whole atchievement,\nin your first performance, amounts to no more than this; by\ngiving so circumstantial an account of Booby's fruitless\noperations, you have pointed out to young gentlemen, who may\nhave the same designs, the quite contrary method, by which\nthey may assuredly promise themselves better success.\n\nNor even do I think Bob Lovelace himself, who glories so\nmuch in intrigue, a\u00a0very formidable man among the ladies, if\nwe except his potions and his doses of opium, which an\napothecary's 'prentice could have managed better than either\nmother Sinclair or him. He possibly might have taken all the\nfreedoms he did with Clarissa, except the last shocking one,\nand not offended her half so much, if he had ordered his\nconduct otherwise. But you seem to have a notion, at least\nyou represent your heroes acting as if nothing could be done\nwith women, but by down-right bribery and corruption, and by\nteazing and terrifying them out of their senses. You are\nhowever mistaken; women are never mercenary in their amours,\nuntil they are totally debauched, and prostitution has\nbecome their trade, and many not even then, where they like\ntheir man. The youngest and most artless of them all know,\nthat when money is offered beforehand they are treated like\nprostitutes, a\u00a0character which they naturally hate and\ndespise, they are sensible their man entertains the same\nsentiments of them, and they as naturally hate and despise\nhim for doing so. Neither is the greatest success to be\nexpected from putting them in ill humour, and keeping their\ntempers constantly on the fret; surely more is to be done\nwhen their hearts are at ease, their fears asleep, and their\nminds softened by sympathizing love and tenderness. At the\nsame time there is a due medium between an abject whiner,\nand an obstinate insulting teazer, which characters women\nknow well how to distinguish; they despise the one, and they\nhate the other: all your lovers are of these kinds; Hickman\nand Lord Goosecap of the first; Lovelace and Booby, when he\nput on his _stately airs_ after the summer-house adventure,\nof the last. You have not been able to describe an\nagreeable, artful, and accomplish'd seducer, who, without\nraising fears and terrors, could melt, surprize, or reason a\nwoman out of her virtue. It is well you have not, for such a\ncharacter could do no good, and might do a great deal of\nmischief. Nay, there is reason to fear, that the characters\nyou have already drawn, whatever your intentions may be,\nhave not quite so innocent a tendency as you imagine.\n\nHaving now enquired into the merit of your compositions,\nwith respect to the manner of their execution, I\u00a0shall next\nproceed to examine what tendency their subject, or the\nmatter contained in them, has to promote chastity, modesty,\nand delicacy; virtues, the advancement of which I believe\nyou have sincerely at heart. You and I, perhaps, entertain\nquite different notions about their nature and origin; but\nwhile we are agreed as to their utility and fitness, and\nthat the conduct of both sexes ought to be more under the\ninfluence of these principles than it generally is, we need\nnot trouble ourselves about such abstract speculations; so\nthat it is to be hoped we shall reason henceforth upon\ncommon principles, and the natural and necessary connection\nbetween causes and effects. Love, eternal Love, is the\nsubject, the burthen of all your writings; it is the\npoignant sauce, which so richly seasons Pamela, Clarissa and\nGrandison, and makes their flimzy nonsense pass so glibly\ndown. Love, eternal love, not only seasons all our other\nnumerous compositions of the same kind, but likewise\nengrosses our theatres and all our dramatic performances,\nwhich were originally calculated to give examples of nobler\npassions. From this situation of affairs among our authors,\none would be apt to imagine, that the propagation of the\nspecies was at a stand, and that, not to talk of marrying\nand giving in marriage, there was hardly any such thing as\nfornication going forward among us, and that therefore our\npublick-spirited penmen, to prevent the world from coming to\nan end, employ'd all their art and eloquence to keep people\nin remembrance, that they were composed of different sexes.\nBut provident nature has rendered all their endeavours\nunnecessary, nay, she has rather erred, if I may be allowed\nthe expression, in making that passion already too strong of\nitself. She has rather implanted too many allurements, and\nhas affixed too great a variety of pleasures to the\nintercourse between the sexes, and has likewise allow'd that\npassion to display itself much sooner than is consistent\neither with the good of society, or the happiness of\nindividuals. Therefore I must always maintain, that those\nwritings which heighten and inflame the passion, which paint\nin lively colours the endearments between the sexes, are of\na bad and pernicious tendency, and do much more evil than\nthey can possibly do good, especially to the young and\namorous, whose appetites are by nature furious and\nungovernable. Your writings are all evidently of this kind,\nand fall within this censure in the strongest manner; and\nnone of your brother romancers are, in my opinion, entirely\nfree from it, except the moral and ingenious authoress of\nDavid Simple. Indeed, if they employed what power they may\nhave to raise the passions, and made use of the possession\nthey have got of the public ear, to inculcate patriotism,\nthe love of a country, and other public and private virtues,\nwhich perhaps were never scarcer than at present, they would\nin that case be as much to be commended, as they now ought\nto be blamed.\n\nMany, Sir, share equally in this guilt with you; however, it\nis not the less for being divided; but if this were all, you\nmight pass undistinguished in the general censure. There is\none species of iniquity, for so I must call it, in which you\nso much excel, in which you have acquired a pre-eminence so\nconspicuous, that all other writers, when you appear, must\nhide their diminished heads, like stars before the sun: that\nconsists in drawing characters the most shockingly vicious,\nand giving examples of villainy the most infamous, and by\nthat means instructing the ignorant and innocent in the\ntheory of crimes, which, without a thorough knowledge of the\ntown, they could never have suspected human nature to have\nbeen capable of. Any one who remembers the correspondence\nbetween Lovelace and Belford, and what passes in that\ninfernal brothel, to which Clarissa was conducted, will at\nonce perceive what I have in view. Equally admirable and\njust is this aphorism of our noble and inimitable poet.\n\n  _Vice is a monster of so frightful mien,_\n  _As to be hated needs but to be seen;_\n  _But seen too oft, familiar with her face,_\n  _We first endure, then pity, then embrace._\n\nThe truth of this is confirmed, both by experience and the\nnature of things. The hearts of men are very corruptible,\nespecially where there is an incitement from a natural\npassion; when they hear an unexampled piece of villainy,\nthey are at first shocked, but if they dwell much upon it,\nthey are at last familiarized to it, they are ingenious\nat inventing excuses for that to which they find an\ninclination, and at last feel less remorse at the actual\ncommission, than they had conceived horror at the bare\nrecital. But Mr. Pope is a Poet, and as you entertain no\ngreat affection for the tuneful tribe, perhaps his authority\nmay have little weight; you are, however, a\u00a0staunch\nbeliever, and an excellent _Bible-scholar_; I shall\ntherefore try the efficacy of a scriptural inference.\n_Moses_, in his celebrated apologue of the fall, has\nintroduced a fanciful imaginary scene, which he calls\nparadise; he has placed there a human couple, under the name\nof _Adam_ and _Eve_; he supposes them created in a state of\ninnocence and happiness, and prohibited to eat of one tree\nin the garden, which he calls the tree of the knowledge of\ngood and evil, under the penalty of being subjected to death\nand misery; but that, being tempted by the serpent, they eat\nof this tree, and are driven out of Paradise. Many and\nvarious allegorical interpretations have been given of this\nfable, but the following, which has been adopted by some of\nthe most eminent of the primitive fathers, and our modern\ndivines, pleases me best, and seems most agreeable to the\nintention of the author. It is said, that by Adam we are to\nunderstand the mind or reason of man; by Eve, the flesh or\noutward senses; and by the serpent, lust or pleasure. This\nallegory, we are told, clearly explains the true causes of\nman's fall and degeneracy, when his mind, through the\nweakness and treachery of his senses, became captivated and\nseduced by the allurements of lust and pleasure, he was\ndriven by God out of Paradise; that is, lost and forfeited\nthe happiness and prosperity which he had enjoyed in his\ninnocence. This interpretation is certainly very ingenious,\nand conveys a noble and a beautiful moral; but I am of\nopinion, that, without straining it in the least, it may be\ncarried a good deal farther, and that Moses, by prohibiting\nhis imaginary pair to taste of the tree of the knowledge of\ngood and evil, intended to warn men against, and shew them\nthe dangerous consequences of, an idle curiosity and\nresearches into vain and useless Things, and to make them\nsensible, that all they could acquire thereby would be pain\nand misery, the necessary consequences of the loss of virtue\nand innocence, and a shameful sense of their own nakedness;\nthat is, the corruption and depravity of human nature. This\ninterpretation is not only deducible in a very obvious\nmanner from the fable itself, but is likewise agreeable to\nexperience. It is certain, that an ignorance of vice is,\nwith great numbers, the best, and sometimes the only\npreservative against it, and that a simple and rural life is\nthe proper soil wherein every virtue flourishes. Neither is\nsuch a state incompatible with the improvement of mankind in\nnatural and moral philosophy, or their advancement in all\nthe valuable arts and sciences.\n\nThe application of this doctrine to you is very obvious. Not\nto mention many faulty scenes in your Grandison and Pamela,\nseveral volumes of your Clarissa contain nothing else but a\nminute and circumstantial detail of the most shocking vices\nand villainous contrivances, transacted in the most infamous\nof places, and by the most infamous characters, and all to\nsatisfy the brutal and the sensual appetite. Thus you act\nthe part of the serpent, and not only throw out to men the\ntempting suggestions of lust and pleasure, but likewise\ninstruct the weak head and the corrupt heart in the methods\nhow to proceed to their gratification. That is, you tempt\nthem to swallow the forbidden fruit of the tree which they\nwere commanded not to eat; I\u00a0mean the tree of the knowledge\nof good and evil. This is a heavy, and indeed the principal\ncharge against you; and I shall now condemn, or, if you\nplease, judge you out of your own mouth. Lady\u00a0G.\u00a0in the\nletter she wrote to Harriet, just as she was setting out for\nNorthamptonshire, to witness her happy nuptials with\nGrandison, has this remarkable passage.\n\n_Let me whisper you Harriet--sure you proud maiden minxes\nthink--But I did once--I wonder in my heart oftentimes--But\nmen and women are cheats to one another. But we may in a\ngreat measure thank the poetical tribe for the fascination.\nI\u00a0hate them all. Are they not inflamers of the worst\npassions? With regard to Epics, would Alexander, madman as\nhe was, have been so much a madman had it not been for\nHomer? Of what violences, murders, depredations, have not\nthe Epic Poets been the occasion, by propagating false\nhonour, false glory, and false religion? Those of the\namorous class ought in all ages (could their future geniuses\nfor tinkling sound and measure have been known) to have been\nstrangled in their cradles. Abusers of talents given them\nfor better purposes (for all this time I put sacred poesy\nout of the question) and avowedly claiming a right to be\nlicentious, and to overleap the bounds of decency, truth and\nnature._\n\n_What a rant!_ (a rant indeed, Charlotte) _how came these\nfellows into my rambling head? O\u00a0I remember my whisper to\nyou led me into all this stuff._\n\n_Well, and you at last recollect the trouble you have given\nmy brother about you. Good Girl! Had I remembered that,\nI\u00a0would have spared you my reflections on the poets and\npoetasters of all ages, the truly inspired ones_ (who are\nthese, my dear) _excepted. And yet I think the others should\nhave been banished our commonwealth as well as Plato's._ So\nit seems we are to have a female republic, of which I\nsuppose these _Varletesses_ Harriet and Charlotte will be\n_Consulesses_.\n\nThere is good reason to believe that her lively ladyship\nspeaks here your own sentiments, but what you can understand\nby sacred poesy is, I\u00a0confess, above my comprehension. Does\nit consist in celestial ballads, holy madrigals, spiritual\ngarlands, or bellmen's verses? for I hardly know any other\nspecies of sacred poesy in our language, our religion being\nthe most unpoetical in the world; so that a sacred subject\ncan never appear with any grace, dignity, or beauty in a\npoem. I\u00a0have already declared my opinion very explicitely\nabout amorous writers, whether in prose or verse; but if the\nsentence which the _dear flighty creature_ passes upon them\nall, without distinction, could have been executed, what\nmust have become of her good friend Mr. Samuel Richardson.\nHe too is a poet, for though he does not write in verse, yet\nhe draws characters, and deals in fiction, and is besides\none of the most amorous poets in the world; he does not\nindeed paint a Chloe or a Sachurissa in an ivy bower, or a\nshady grove, there is something of delicacy in that; but he\nrepresents all the preparations to the good work, and the\ngood work itself, going forward, in a downright honest\nmanner, among whores and rakes, in brothels and bagnios. He\nnot only raises the passions, but kindly points out the\nreadiest and the easiest way to lay them. That man must have\na very philosophical constitution, indeed, who does not find\nhimself moved by several descriptions, particularly that\nluscious one, which Bob Lovelace gives of Clarissa's person,\nwhen he makes the attempt on her virtue, after the adventure\nof the fire. Not that I think any genius is required for\nsuch an atchievement; nature, with the least hint, is more\nthan sufficient for the purpose; few good writers have\nattempted such things, and the very worst have succeeded.\nHowever, the passions of the reader being now raised, his\nnext business is to satisfy them; and he cannot but reflect\nthat this virtuous scene passes in a brothel, where, though\nClarissa may be impregnable, unless a dose of opium be first\nadministered, there are such girls as Sally Martin and Polly\nHorton; but they not being _every man's girls_, as Bob\nLovelace tells us, and our adventurer, perhaps, not having\nmoney, address, or patience, to come to the _ultimatum_ with\nthose first-rate ladies of pleasure, he very sagely\nconcludes, that one woman is as good as another, especially\nas the same Bob Lovelace, so experienced in the ways of\nwomen, informs him, that _that prime gift differs only in\nits external customary visibles_, and that _the skull of\nPhilip is no better than another man's_, he very contentedly\nresolves to take up with Dorcas Wykes, or the first _ready\nnon-apparent_ he can meet with in _the outer house_.\nAccordingly our amorous youth sallies forth, fully bent to\nenjoy Clarissa in imagination; but before he has got half\nway to mother Sinclair's, he meets a pretty girl in the\nstreets, who invites him to a glass of wine, and the next\ntavern stands open for their reception. This is the natural\ncatastrophe of a serious perusal of the fire-adventure; and\nI believe it has ended this way much oftener than in any\ngood way. Thus if her flighty Ladyship would be impartial in\nthe execution of her sentence, we may easily conjecture what\nwould become of Samuel Richardson, at least of his works.\n\n_Let me whisper you, Charlotte.--Ought not this writer of\nthe amorous class (could his future genius for loose and\nlascivious description have been known) to have been\nstrangled in his cradle?--I see the charming archness rising\nin your eyes, which makes one both love you and fear\nyou.--Yet you look meditatingly--Tell me, thou dear flighty\ncreature--Am I not right?--Very right, Sir.--Huzzah,\nSam.--well said--that's a good girl--give me a buss for\nthat, Hussy--Heyday, SIRR--Who allows you these liberties,\nSIRR!--I take them, Charlotte.--Do not think you have\nwemmell'd me quite--so none of your scrupulosities with me\nVarletess--but oh! what an eye-beam was there,--she has\nsoul-harrow'd me by her frowns,--yet her anger may slide off\non its own ice.--Then hey for lady Goosecap,--O\u00a0Jack, the\ncharmingest bosom, ever mine eyes beheld._  *  *  *  *  *  *\n  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *\n\nThis is a small specimen of the manner and stile\n_Richardsonian_, _that is my word_, so greatly and so\njustly admired by the present age, with which, no less than\neighteen large volumes are stuffed from beginning to end.\nBut to return to our argument.\n\nYou have been already found fault with for the shocking\ndescription Jack Belford gives of that levy of damsels who\nattended mother Sinclair on her death-bed, such a scene must\ncertainly be shocking enough, yet could not be near so much\non the part of the ladies as is represented; but it must be\nremembered, that Jackey had then _got into his Horribles_,\nas Bob terms it, and, as Bays has it, he rounded it off\negad. I\u00a0have one great objection to all such descriptions\nwhich is implied in the verses above cited from Mr. Pope,\nbut there is another and a greater against this, that it is\ncontrary to truth. Few, or none of our English ladies of\npleasure exercise the mystery of painting, and bating the\nodoriferous particles of gin, which sometimes exhale from\ntheir breaths, there are many of them, without any\ndisparagement, as little slatternly in their persons, as\nmost other fine ladies in a morning; indeed, if such\ndescriptions had the same effect on the minds of youth, that\nraw-head and bloody-bones have upon children, to frighten\nthem from the objects they ought to shun they might be of\nsome service, but when upon trial they find them better than\nthey have been taught to believe them, they are apt to\nimagine them not so bad as they really are.\n\nLet us now return to _the dear flighty creature_, and the\nsentence which she passes upon the Poets. She has a fling at\nHomer, whom the beauteous Harriet, in her dispute with the\nuniversity pedant, had before criticized upon in a masterly\nmanner, and like a good Englishwoman, from the authority of\nher godfather Deane, concluded, that our Milton has excelled\nhim in the sublimity of his images, this, is a controversy\nwhich I shall not enter into, with so lovely a disputant,\nwhose eyes, whatever her lips may be, are always in the\nright. We are asked, _would Alexander, madman as he was,\nhave been so much a madman, had it not been for Homer, of\nwhat violences, murders, depredations, have not the Epic\npoets been the occasion, by propagating false honour, false\nglory, and false Religion?_ These remarks are, I\u00a0suppose,\noccasioned by the great veneration which the Macedonian hero\nprofessed for Homer's writings, and by his famous imitation,\nor rather improvement, on the cruelty of Achilles, in\ndragging round the walls of a conquered city its brave\ndefender. But may it not be asked with equal, if not greater\npropriety, would many profligate and abandoned, as they\nnaturally are, be so very profligate and abandoned, were it\nnot for Richardson? And, of what rapes, violences, and\ndebaucheries, have not the Romance writers been the\noccasion, by propagating false love, false chastity, and\nfalse, I\u00a0shall not add religion, 'till you, who are so well\nqualified, have demonstrated which is the true one? If\nAlexander exceeded Achilles in cruelty, may not many go\nbeyond Lovelace in that, as well as in debauchery? None but\nsuch as Alexander have ever proposed to imitate Achilles,\nbut every man of a moderate fortune may set up Lovelace for\na pattern, by whom to model his conduct. Should it be said,\nthat in Lovelace, Richardson gives the example of a man, who\nbrought ruin and destruction on himself by his vices, and\nthat he constantly expresses the utmost abhorrence of his\nbad morals, with equal, nay, with greater justice, must not\nthe same be said of Homer? Nay, as it happens, he expresses\nin his own person a thing not usual with him, his\ndisapprobation in the strongest terms, of Achilles's\nbarbarous usage of Heistor's dead Body, that piece of\ncruelty which Alexander particularly imitated.\n\n+Hektora dion aeikea m\u00eadeto erga+ are his words, when he\nintroduces the narration of that event. No doubt Homer's\nwritings have been, and may be abused, and so may the best\nand most useful of all human inventions; religion itself has\nnot escaped, and its abuse has been ever attended with the\nmost pernicious and destructive consequences. But surely\nthey are not so liable to be abused as your compositions;\nHomer, indeed, describes vicious characters, but all their\nviciousness consists in the natural passions being carried\nto a blameable excess, he paints no improvement, no\nrefinement, no elaborate contrivance in villany, this is\nwhat you excell in, above all the authors antient or modern,\nI\u00a0remember to have read. The anger of Achilles was raised by\na most provoking insult which he received from Agamemnon. He\nthus expresses himself:\n\n  _My maid, my black-ey'd maid he forc'd away,_\n  _Due to the toils of many a dreadful Day,_\n  _From me he forc'd her, me, the bold and brave,_\n  _Disgrac'd, dishonour'd, like the vilest slave._\n\nWhat could be more natural than a resentment on such an\noccasion? And what could be more natural, than for a man of\nAchilles's temper to carry that resentment too far? Both he\nand Agamemnon suffer severely for the errors they commit;\nand what renders the fable still more beautiful, and the\nmoral still more instructive, is this consideration, that\ntheir sufferings appear to be the unavoidable and necessary\nconsequences of their errors; of course, nothing can more\neffectually deter others in similar circumstances from being\nguilty of the like faults for the future. But the oeconomy\nof your plot, and the disposition of your characters, are\nentirely different. Lovelace determines on the ruin of\nClarissa, from motives and passions altogether unnatural,\nwhich could subsist no where, but in a heart debauched of\nitself, initiated in all the mysteries of villany, and\nregularly educated in an academy of wickedness; his motives\nand passions are an aversion to marriage, a\u00a0resentment\nagainst Clarissa's family, an infamous resolution to wreak\nhis revenge on the only person in it, who loved him;\na\u00a0ridiculous doubt of her virtue, and a vain-glorious pride,\nin having a reputation for intrigue, and adding an\nhonourable name to a list, which it seems he kept, of the\ncredulous fools he had already ruined, and the tricks which\nhe put in practice, to bring about that diabolical end, are\nall uniformly of a piece with the motives and passions which\ninspired them; nor is the matter in the least mended by the\ncatastrophe which ensues; for it is not the necessary and\nunavoidable consequence of his committed crimes, you are at\nthe greatest pains to let us know so much out of his own\nmouth: _Who could have thought it_, says he to his friend\nBelford, _I\u00a0have said it a thousand times, surely there\nnever can be such another woman_; thus, you must be sensible\nyou have entirely destroyed the moral, and any good effect\nthat could be expected from the example; for, if there never\ncan be such another woman as Clarissa, and such a\ncatastrophe is not again to be dreaded, there is nothing to\ndeter another Rake from putting in practice the same\ninfamous schemes, upon any other woman he may happen to have\nin his power.\n\nThus far, Sir, have I carried the parallel between Homer and\nyou, with respect to the moral tendency of your works,\na\u00a0parallel in any other view, you yourself must be sensible\nwould be ridiculous. Were I to extend it farther, it would\nstill conclude more to your disadvantage, but I think enough\nis said to convince any impartial person, that if the one,\nwith the smallest appearance of justice, was denied an\nadmission into the Platonic commonwealth, the other would\nhave been kick'd out of it with shame and disgrace; yet, you\nhave very pleasantly contrived to find a place there for\nyourself, in Homer's room. You have adopted and inserted in\nyour Clarissa the four following verses, of a poetical\nencomium which was made upon\u00a0it.\n\n  _Even Plato in Lyceum's awful shade,_\n  _Th' instructive page, with transport had survey'd,_\n  _And own'd its author, to have well supplied,_\n  _The place, his laws, to Homer's self denied._\n\nUnder these lines we have this note. By the laws of Plato's\ncommonwealth, Homer was denied a place there, on account of\nthe bad tendency of the morals he ascribes to his Gods and\nhis Heroes; but from the short parallel I have drawn, let\nthe impartial determine whose writings have the worst\ntendency. I\u00a0know nothing of your poet Laureate, therefore\nshall say as little of him, but I cannot tell which most to\nwonder at, your own ignorance or vanity, the last is\nconspicuous in numberless other places as well as this, the\nfirst is scarce less so. Tho' you have mention'd Plato's\ncommonwealth oftener than once in your works, yet, it\nappears that you know nothing of its nature or constitution,\nby which it was rendered impossible, for such characters as\nyou describe, to have either an existence, or an admission\ninto that imaginary republic. The pride of wealth in the\nHarlow family, and the pride of titles and descent in the\nLovelace family, can no where be found, save, in a\nmonarchial and commercial state, where there is a hereditary\nnoblesse, and a great inequality among the fortunes of the\ncitizens. Neither can such characters as Lovelace and his\nassociates, or mother Sinclair and her nymphs, display\nthemselves, or such a place as the mother's brothel, subsist\nany where but in a city like London, the overgrown\nmetropolis of a powerful Empire, and an extensive commerce;\nall these corruptions, are the necessary and unavoidable\nconsequences of such a constitution of things. In order to\nprevent which, Plato made the basis of his republic consist\nin a perfect equality of the citizens, both with respect to\nhonours and estates, and to banish commerce, in his opinion,\nthe other great corrupter of the morals of a people, forever\nfrom the state; he supposes that his city is built in an\ninland country, at a distance from the Ocean or Sea-ports.\nI\u00a0shall not pretend to justify Plato in all his whims; but\nit is certain, that if such an establishment were\npracticable, every public and private virtue would have a\nbetter chance to flourish there, than in any other State,\nwhere different principles prevail. From these circumstances\nit is manifest, that if we could suppose a Platonic citizen,\nentirely unacquainted with what passes in the world, beyond\nthe verges of his own republic, he would imagine, if such a\nbook as Clarissa was recommended to his perusal, that the\ncharacters described in it were monsters, not men, and\nexisted no where, except in the depraved fancy of its\nauthor.\n\nHere, Sir, I put a period to my general remarks on your\ncompositions; I\u00a0cannot say they are thrown altogether into a\nregular order, but they may do well enough in a loose essay,\nas this is intended to be. It would require a bulky volume\nto contain remarks on all the passages which deserve it,\nwhether it were to point out innumerable faults, or some few\nshining beauties. I\u00a0am not equal to the task, and, though I\nwere, should not undertake it. Had you wrote nothing else,\nPamela would have been consigned, long before now, to utter\nneglect and oblivion. Such soon will be the fate of\nGrandison, admired and sought after as it is at present.\nPeople must some time or other tire of conning over such\nquantities of flimzy stuff. I\u00a0wonder at their present\npatience and perseverance, and can never sufficiently admire\nthe contexture of that brain which can weave with unwearied\ntoil such immense webs of idle tittle-tattle, and gossipping\nnonsense. Clarissa perhaps deserves a better fate.\n\n_Great are its faults, but glorious is its flame_, may not\nimproperly be said of it, as has been said of Shakespear's\nOthello.\n\nIt must be owned, you have fallen upon a manner of writing,\nin a series of Letters, which is very affecting, and capable\nof great improvements. It preserves a great probability in\nthe narration, and makes every thing appear animated and\nimpassioned. It is to be regretted, that you have trifled so\negregiously as you have done; you are one of those who,\nhaving an exuberant genius, and little judgment, never know\nwhen they have said enough. The manner in which you have\npublished your pieces is a proof of this; Pamela came out\nfirst in two volumes, and was then compleat, however two\nmore were afterwards added; Clarissa made her first\nappearance in seven volumes, and there are now eight; and\nGrandison, I\u00a0suppose, will in a short time be improved in\nthe same manner. This conduct, Sir, may at first encrease\nthe profits of authorship, but in the end will always\ndestroy the credit of the author. There never was a good\nwriter yet, who blotted not out ten lines for one that he\nadded. It has been said of Virgil, that when composing, he\nused to dictate a great many lines in the morning, and\nemploy the rest of the day in reducing them to a small\nnumber. It was said in commendation of Shakespear, that he\nnever blotted a line; Ben Johnson replied, he wished he had\nblotted a thousand, in which I believe every body now\nconcurs with him. Homer alone seems to be an exception to\nthis rule, in all his writings there are so much ease and\nnature, that I can hardly think he either blotted or\ncorrected, his verses appear to have been wholly dictated by\nthe inspired Muse herself. But you, Sir, are not a Homer,\nand are besides totally ignorant of that art, without the\nfrequent exercise of which no other authors have ever\nattained to a great and lasting reputation, I\u00a0mean the art\nof blotting judiciously, and lopping off superfluities and\nexcrescences, without tenderness or remorse. Instead of\nadding one volume to Clarissa, as originally printed, had\nyou taken three away, it might have been made a valuable\nperformance. The best, perhaps, the only way to correct\nGrandison and Pamela, would be to make them pass thro' the\nfire.\n\nTo conclude, I think your writings have corrupted our\nlanguage and our taste; that the composition of them all,\nexcept Clarissa, is bad; and that they all, particularly\nthat, have a manifest tendency to corrupt our morals. I\u00a0have\nlikewise shewn that your principal characters are all,\nexcept Clarissa's, faulty, ridiculous, or unmeaning.\nGrandison is an inconsistent angel, Lovelace is an absolute\ndevil, and Booby is a perfect ass; Pamela is a little pert\nminx, whom any man of common sense or address might have had\non his own terms in a week or a fortnight, Harriet appears\nto be every thing, and yet may be nothing, except a ready\nscribe, a\u00a0verbose letter-writer; and as to Clarissa,\nI\u00a0believe you will own yourself, that I have done you ample\njustice. I\u00a0now leave you seriously to contemplate the merit\nof your performances, and shall only add, that I hope you\nwill have the candour not to impute these animadversions to\nany spiteful envy conceived at your great reputation and\nextraordinary success; yet, this I will say, that some\nexpressions might perhaps have been pointed with less\nseverity, had I not observed that your constant endeavours\nare to render a certain set of men amongst us, the objects\nof public hatred and detestation; for any thing you know to\nthe contrary they may be in the right, and you in the wrong,\nat least, as I told you before, you are no proper judge in\nthe controversy, whether they are or not. At any rate this\nconduct of yours must proceed either from a weakness of the\nhead, or a badness of the heart. A\u00a0weakness in the head,\nthat your understanding still continues blinded with all\nthose prejudices, in their full strength, which you imbibed\nin the years of your childhood, from the old women in the\nnursery. A\u00a0badness of the heart, that makes you imagine any\ndifference in opinions, merely speculative, ever can give\njust occasion to an unfavourable distinction among members\nof the same society, partakers of the same human nature, and\nchildren of one common indulgent Parent, the almighty and\nbeneficent Creator of all things.\n\n  _I am_, &c.\n\n\n\n\n_POSTSCRIPT._\n\n\nAfter having animadverted warmly, yet, I hope, justly, upon\none author, a\u00a0worthy and virtuous man, as I believe, for\nshewing an indiscreet zeal in behalf of a religion, in the\nprofession of which he is undoubtedly sincere; it would be\nan unpardonable neglect, to take no notice of another\nauthor, a\u00a0daily journalist too, whose sincerity at the best\nis dubious, but whose zeal, whether real or pretended,\nflames out beyond all the bounds of order or decency. The\nzeal of Richardson, when weigh'd against the zeal, or rather\nthe fury of Hill, _would be found wanting, and as dust in\nthe balance_. The Inspectors which have given occasion to\nthis postscript, are those of Saturday the 9th, and\nWednesday the 13th of this present month of February;\nneither of which had made its appearance before the\nforegoing remarks were compleated and sent to the press. In\nthese the journalist has done his utmost, not only to\nprejudice weak minds against Lord Bolingbroke's posthumous\nworks, and the Essays on Crucifixion, Fainting Fits,\nResurrections and Miracles, proposals for printing which by\nsubscription have been lately published; but to raise the\nfuries of religious rage and persecution against the editor\nof the one, and the author of the other. He tells the first,\nthat _were he a robber and a murderer, he would be less\ncriminal, less worthy capital punishment and the Detestation\nof all Mankind_. He declares _he shall do all a private man\ncan do to bring him to punishment_. Of the last he says,\nthat _not the religious alone, but all who have wisdom, and\na sense of decency, join to say, that no punishment can be\ntoo severe for him_: And, after having given some charitable\nhints, drawn from the death of Socrates, and the practice of\nthe Heathens, he thus apostrophizes. _Will Christians suffer\nwhat they could not bear? It cannot be: It is not possible.\nLaws will be put in execution, and the histories of the\nwhole world cannot produce a greater criminal._\n\nThe bare recital of these distempered ravings is a\nsufficient confutation of them, is sufficient to inspire all\nmen of sense and common humanity with a detestation for\nthem, and a contempt for their author. This is not the\nlanguage of a protestant writer, but of a furious\nblood-thirsty popish inquisitor. That he would be gladly\ninvested with such a character, and that he would act most\nfuriously and bloodily in it, is evident from his journals;\nbut that he is only a private man, and even as such his\ninfluence small, is surely a happy circumstance for our\nnative country.\n\nShould it be enquired, what has given occasion to this\nflaming manifestation of popish zeal, the candid reader\nwould undoubtedly be surprized, should he be told, that one\narticle is, a\u00a0random and incredible report, concerning Lord\nBolingbroke's expected posthumous works, that their design\nis to prove, _there is no human soul, no deity, no spirit,\nand nothing but matter in the universe_. Whoever is\nacquainted with his lordship's writings, which have already\nbeen published; whoever knows that Mr. Pope was indebted to\nhim for the plan of the noblest poem extant in any language,\nI\u00a0mean his Essay on Man, must at once be convinced, from\nocular demonstration, of the infamous falshood of this\nassertion. That his lordship was a theist, and a disbeliever\nin miracles and revelations, cannot and need not be denied.\nBut that he was no atheist, no materialist, his acknowledged\ngood sense is, alone, a\u00a0sufficient proof. I\u00a0do think\nscepticism the best and truest philosophy; and I scruple not\nto own, I\u00a0have called in question, one time or other, the\ntruth of most things which cannot be demonstrated. But the\nexistence of spirit and deity was never one of those things.\nOf this I am certain, from consciousness, from reason, from\ndemonstration. But I have often doubted the real existence\nof matter; for this I have not even the testimony of my\nsenses, only prejudice and instinct. It is only such a\nphilosopher as our inspector, who believes animals are mere\nmachines, who can be an atheist and a materialist.\n\nThe other article which has given an opportunity to our\nJesuitical journalist to flame forth with the true spirit of\na popish inquisitor, is, the publication of proposals for\nprinting by subscription, Essays on Crucifixion; Syncopes,\nor Fainting-Fits; the uncertainty of the signs of Death, and\nthe real nature and frequency of those Accidents which have\nbeen called Resurrections from the Dead; and on Miracles,\ntheir Nature, and the Evidence for them. There is surely\nnothing, either in this title or the proposals themselves,\nwhich appears to have a pernicious tendency against any\nreligious establishment whatsoever; and he, surely, must be\nendued with a wonderful penetration, who can discover any\nthing like it in them. They seem only to promise medical and\nphilosophical enquiries into medical and philosophical\nsubjects. Why may not an essay on Crucifixion be as harmless\nas a dissertation on Tar-Water? and what destructive\nconsequences can attend a treatise on Fainting-Fits and\ncounterfeited Death, more than a treatise on broken heads or\nbloody noses? They are all physical subjects, and fall\nwithin the province of a medical writer, which it is to be\nsupposed the author of the proposals is, otherwise he cannot\nbe equal to the task he has undertaken. But our admirable\nand sagacious inspector thus addresses the public, _'Tis\npalpable, 'tis evident_, says he, _that this man means to\ntell you, the Saviour of the world did not die upon the\ncross; that he did not rise from the dead; that he did not\nwork miracles._ I shall only observe, that the words Jesus,\nChristianity, or even Religion, are not so much as once\nmentioned in these proposals, and probably may not be found\nin the work itself, when it appears. Hence we may reasonably\ninfer, that the world is indebted for these discoveries to\nthe wonderful acuteness of the Inspectorial nostrils, which\ncan smell out irreligion and infidelity, where no such\nthings are intended, or even dreamt of. If such, indeed, are\nthe intentions of this proposer, he is, doubtless, greatly\nobliged to his good friend, the Inspector, or rather the\nwould-be inquisitor, for discovering to the public what it\nseems he himself either would not, or durst not, so much as\nhint at. But 'tis malice, 'tis fiction all, and 'tis most\nprobable, the author himself never had any such things in\nhis thoughts.\n\nBut to be serious, for the subject requires it; too much\ndetestation, too much abhorrence, can never be shewn for the\nprinciples and practices of this journalist, and they can\nnever be sufficiently exposed and exploded. If he is not\nsincere, if he makes religion only a stalking horse, to\ngratify his passions, his pride, his vanity, his ambition,\nor his interest, there never was a character more infamous,\nmore detestable. If he is sincere, his principles are\nequally destructive, equally pernicious, to all the most\nvaluable interests of civil government and social life.\nI\u00a0would incline to the more favourable interpretation; but,\nwithout any breach of charity, it may be said, that his\ndirty interest is one of his great motives for such a\nconduct. In a late famous letter of his, where, in so many\nwords, he affirms, that _no other, unless he be conjured\nfrom the dead, is qualified to be Keeper of Sir Hans\nSloane's Museum, except himself_, he thus addresses the\nChancellor: _My Lord, I\u00a0shall conclude with saying that, to\nhis grace of Canterbury, I\u00a0hope that respect I have, in all\nmy writings, shewn to the religion of my country, will prove\nsome recommendation._ Here the cloven foot manifestly\nappears; and, do doubt, he greedily laid hold of these\nproposals, to display, at this seasonable juncture, that\n_recommending_ respect to the religion of his country, which\nhe imagined, though perhaps erroneously, was intended to be\nattacked.\n\n  _FINIS._\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n           *       *       *       *\n\n  _The Editors of THE AUGUSTAN REPRINT SOCIETY_\n\n  _are pleased to announce that_\n\n  THE WILLIAM ANDREWS CLARK MEMORIAL LIBRARY\n\n  _of The University of California, Los Angeles_\n\nwill become the publisher of the Augustan Reprints in May, 1949. The\neditorial policy of the Society will continue unchanged. As in the past,\nthe editors will strive to furnish members inexpensive reprints of rare\nseventeenth and eighteenth century works.\n\nAll correspondence concerning subscriptions in the United States and\nCanada should be addressed to the William Andrews Clark Memorial\nLibrary, 2205 West Adams Blvd., Los Angeles 7, California.\nCorrespondence concerning editorial matters may be addressed to any of\nthe general editors. Membership fee continues $2.50 per year ($2.75 in\nGreat Britain and the continent). British and European subscribers\nshould address B.\u00a0H. Blackwell, Broad Street, Oxford, England.\n\nPublications for the fourth year (1949-1950)\n\n(_At least six items will be printed in the main from the following\nlist_)\n\n  [Where available, Project Gutenberg e-text numbers are shown in\n  brackets. The numbering system using \"Series I-VI\" was abandoned\n  after Year 3, and earlier publications were retroactively renumbered.]\n\nSERIES IV: MEN, MANNERS, AND CRITICS\n\nJohn Dryden, _His Majesties Declaration Defended_ (1681)  [15074]\n\nDaniel Defoe (?), _Vindication of the Press_ (1718)  [14084 (year 5)]\n\n_Critical Remarks on Sir Charles Grandison, Clarissa, and Pamela_ (1754)\n[_present text_]\n\nSERIES V: DRAMA\n\nThomas Southerne, _Oroonoko_ (1696)  [_not published_]\n\nMrs. Centlivre, _The Busie Body_ (1709)  [16740]\n\nCharles Johnson, _Caelia_ (1733)  [_not published_]\n\nCharles Macklin, _Man of the World_ (1781)  [14463 (year 5)]\n\nSERIES VI: POETRY AND LANGUAGE\n\nAndre Dacier, _Essay on Lyric Poetry_  [_not published_]\n\n_Poems_ by Thomas Sprat  [_not published_]\n\n_Poems_ by the Earl of Dorset  [_not published_]\n\nSamuel Johnson, _Vanity of Human Wishes_ (1749), and one of the 1750\n_Rambler_ papers.  [13350]\n\nEXTRA SERIES:\n\nLewis Theobald, _Preface to Shakespeare's Works_ (1733)  [16346]\n\nA few copies of the early publications of the Society are still\navailable at the original rate.\n\n\nGENERAL EDITORS\n\n  H. RICHARD ARCHER, Clark Memorial Library\n  RICHARD C. BOYS, University of Michigan\n  EDWARD NILES HOOKER, University of California, Los Angeles\n  H. T. SWEDENBERG JR., University of California, Los Angeles\n\n  ------------------------------------------------------------\n\n  TO THE AUGUSTAN REPRINT SOCIETY\n  _William Andrews Clark Memorial Library_\n  _2205 West Adams Blvd., Los Angeles 7, California_\n\n  AS MEMBERSHIP FEE I enclose for:\n\n  _Name_ ___________________________________________\n\n\n  _Address_ ________________________________________\n\n  { The fourth year                            $2.50\n  { The third and fourth year                   5.00\n  { The second, third and fourth year           7.50\n  { The first, second, third, and fourth year  10.00\n  { [Add $.25 for each year if ordering from Great Britain\n  {   or the continent]\n\nMake check or money order payable to THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF\nCALIFORNIA.\n\n_Note: All income of the Society is devoted to defraying cost of\nprinting and mailing._\n\n\n\n\nPUBLICATIONS OF THE AUGUSTAN REPRINT SOCIETY\n\n  [All titles from the first three years are available from Project\n  Gutenberg; e-text numbers are given in brackets.]\n\n\nFirst Year (1946-1947)\n\n1. Richard Blackmore's _Essay upon Wit_ (1716), and Addison's _Freehold_\nNo. 45 (1716). (I,\u00a01)  [13484]\n\n2. Samuel Cobb's _Of Poetry_ and _Discourse on Criticism_ (1707).\n(II,\u00a01)  [14937]\n\n3. _Letter to A. H. Esq.; concerning the Stage_ (1698), and Richard\nWillis' _Occasional Paper No. IX_ (1698). (III,\u00a01)  [14047]\n\n4. _Essay on Wit_ (1748), together with Characters by Flecknoe, and\nJoseph Warton's _Adventurer_ Nos. 127 and 133. (I,\u00a02)  [14528]\n\n5. Samuel Wesley's _Epistle to a Friend Concerning Poetry_ (1700) and\n_Essay on Heroic Poetry_ (1693). (II,\u00a02)  [16506]\n\n6. _Representation of the Impiety and Immorality of the Stage_ (1704)\nand _Some Thoughts Concerning the Stage_ (1704). (III,\u00a02)  [15656]\n\nSecond Year (1947-1948)\n\n7. John Gay's _The Present State of Wit_ (1711); and a section on Wit\nfrom _The English Theophrastus_ (1702). (I,\u00a03)  [14800]\n\n8. Rapin's _De Carmine Pastorali_, translated by Creech (1684). (II,\u00a03)\n[14495]\n\n9. T. Hanmer's (?) _Some Remarks on the Tragedy of Hamlet_ (1736).\n(III,\u00a03)  [14899]\n\n10. Corbyn Morris' _Essay towards Fixing the True Standards of Wit,\netc._ (1744). (I,\u00a04)  [16233]\n\n11. Thomas Purney's _Discourse on the Pastoral_ (1717). (II,\u00a04)  [15313]\n\n12. Essays on the Stage, selected, with an Introduction by Joseph Wood\nKrutch. (III,\u00a04)  [16335]\n\nThird Year (1948-1949)\n\n13. Sir John Falstaff (pseud.), _The Theatre_ (1720). (IV,\u00a01)  [15999]\n\n14. Edward Moore's _The Gamester_ (1753). (V, 1)  [16267]\n\n15. John Oldmixon's _Reflections on Dr. Swift's Letter to Harley_\n(1712); and Arthur Mainwaring's _The British Academy_ (1712). (VI,\u00a01)\n[25091]\n\n16. Nevil Payne's _Fatal Jealousy_ (1673). (V, 2)  [16916]\n\n17. Nicholas Rowe's _Some Account of the Life of Mr. William Shakespear_\n(1709). (Extra Series,\u00a0I)  [16275]\n\n18. Aaron Hill's Preface to _The Creation_; and Thomas Brereton's\nPreface to _Esther_. (IV,\u00a02)  [15870]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n           *       *       *       *\n\nErrors and Inconsistencies\n\nIn the body text, variable spellings such as \"villany\" : \"villainy\" and\n\"intire\" : \"entire\" are unchanged. Unless otherwise noted, all spelling,\npunctuation and capitalization are as printed.\n\nIntroduction:\n\n  \"... an ordinary Share of Virtue\" (p.\u00a024)  [(p.24)]\n\nCritical Remarks:\n\n  there never can be any thing but a perpetual jarring discord\n    [pertpeual]\n  limited state of the human understanding  [understandng]\n  according to his particular temper or circumstances  [cricumstances]\n  How to reconcile to probability\n    [_printed \"proba-/bability\" at line break_]\n  But as these precepts and examples are now applied\n    [_\"a\" in \"and\" printed upside-down_]\n  and by the serpent, lust or pleasure. This allegory  [pleasure,]\n  just as she was setting out  [just us]\n  paint a Chloe or a Sachurissa  [_unchanged: error for \"Sacharissa\"?_]\n  Ben Johnson replied, he wished  [_spelling unchanged_]\n  any difference in opinions, merely speculative  [opinions.]\n  the Detestation of all Mankind  [_first \"l\" in \"all\" invisible_]","title":"Critical Remarks on Sir Charles Grandison, Clarissa, and Pamela (1754)","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":17958}