Pamela

November 18, 2009 jennleonard

It is safe to say that no one married for love in the 1740’s. Back then marriage was a matter of business, rather than a matter of love for one another. Fathers sought out suitors for their daughters who had money, and the fathers of the suitors sought out a woman with an already wealthy family. I felt that in Pamela, Richardson was trying to show the world that marriage through love was possible and that the personality traits that Pamela possessed would make her a far more desirable wife than money ever could. In fact, at one point in the novel Mr. B actually says:

“I have possessions ample enough for us both; and you deserve to hare them with me’ and you shall, with as little reserve, as if you had brought me what the world reckons an equivalent: for in my own opinion, you bring me what is infinitely more valuable, an experienced truth, a well-tried virtue, and an understanding and genteel behavior that will do credit to the station you will be placed in” (pp 368)

He is not only referring to the physical aspects of a relationship, the lust and possessions – he is also referring to the emotional aspects of a relationship. It seems to me like Richardson is trying to suggest that there is more than just a physical aspect to a relationship. The lust, sex and money is ever present, but he feels that there is also room for a friendship between two people.