Acting as an “example” means influencing the actions of others. If the effects are, as Johnson claims, “powerful,” a responsibility of care accompanies the role of example. This responsibility may seem unnecessary, to the extent that the example takes over the “memory” and exists only as a mental influence. However, this influence only exists temporarily in the mind. “Effects” translate into actions capable of affecting individuals in their environment. There is therefore a responsibility in the conscious effort to present one's behavior as a positive moral example, so that these "effects" which are realized in others are also positive. Johnson specifies that these effects occur “without the intervention of the will”. This perhaps suggests that the responsibility of example is present in all action, and not simply in the conscious activity of modeling oneself after a positive influence. If "intervention of the will" is removed, neither the example nor the individual affected by the example has a choice as to which of their actions serves as an example. Eliza Haywood's Fantomina and Samuel Richardson's Pamela both engage with this concept of all action as an "example." Even seemingly arbitrary actions have powerful effects, suggesting that any action cannot escape moral responsibility. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an original essay Throughout the 18th century novel, characters are often categorized by social class. Eliza Haywood's Fantomina challenges the concept that the powerful effect of "example" is limited to social class and the customs associated with it. The effects of example are so powerful that they ignore social hierarchy and can affect individuals across class boundaries. The original example of Fantomina, the prostitute in the opening scene, is anonymous but central as an influence that "excited in her a curiosity to know in what manner these creatures were addressed." »[1] Physically limited by social class, Fantomina resides in a box. , while the prostitute remains in the “Pit”. There is therefore no interaction with his example, which suggests that the power of the example can be active through the gaze alone. However, his "curiosity" is "excited", not created. This suggests a widespread dissatisfaction with her experience of class restrictions, which has remained dormant, but which is still deeply rooted in a history of female repression. Fantomina is now only able to act on this frustration by introducing an example that she can imitate; the prostitute offers an approach that circumvents the restrictions of feminine tradition. The power of example is arguably diminished by this argument, to the extent that “curiosity” already exists within Fantomina. Moreover, the gaze provokes her "curiosity" to the point of a "kind of violence", so that the influence of the prostitute almost completely exceeds the process of "taking possession of memory". Once Fantomina witnesses the “manner” in which the prostitutes act, she begins to implement her “resolutions” (Haywood, p. 227). For this "Frolic" to be possible, Fantomina must stoop below human form, to a "Creature", in order to consciously neglect the burden of responsibility associated with being a Lady. [2] Haywood therefore refuses to align Fantomina with a class-specific restrictive example. If the power of example were so influential that it affected Fantomina through sight alone, even interacting with a higher-class example would likely be ineffective. Instead of a freedom to cross thesocial boundaries, Richardson's Pamela displays an expectation that example should be restricted by social constraints. class. Margaret Anne Doody suggests that none of Richardson's female characters are "absolute" and that they need a constant positive example to become so. [1]. Richardson thus presents Lady Davers as the character who should exist as this example of the upper class to make Pamela "absolute". However, his vocabulary rejects this expectation: “the young girl could not speak thus if she had not been her master's bedfellow” (Richardson, p. 384). Lower-class terminology, which includes "girl", creates a parallel between the two women – Pamela regularly calls Mrs Jewkes a "fat, full-purse thing" – which suggests that both need a polite example to become " absolute”, regardless of their ancestry (Richardson, p.114). Lady Davers is therefore identified as a bad example, and her “power” of influence is diminished. Unlike Fantomina, Pamela can choose to refuse both sight and interaction with her expected "example." Additionally, this character interaction occurs in private, suggesting a difference between this and public discourse. Lady Davers freely addresses the subject of desire, an emotion that should neither be felt nor discussed by women. This presents the role of an upper-class example as perhaps exclusive to a public construction of behavior, which only exists to meet social expectations. Privately, Richardson reverses these public expectations of setting an example. Pamela is able to refuse Lady Davers' negative influence by recognizing her own morality as a better example. Ironically, the girl accused of acting like her Master's "bedfellow" constitutes the positive example that will make the Lady "absolute." The “power” of the example can therefore vary depending on the recipient. Pamela keeps this scene in her memory, as she will later tell MB, but does not allow this influence to “take possession” of her. In Pamela, the power of example is limited to the socially superior, a concept condemned by Richardson through Pamela's refusal of Lady Davers' influence. Richardson and Haywood also present their protagonists as examples and explore how “powerful” their effects are on others. . Tassie Gwilliam comments: "It's easy to see how the line between the woman who performs to an audience unknowingly and the woman who consciously performs to a male audience can become blurred." [1] This concept separates Pamela and Fantomina as characters. The effects of example are arguably most powerful when they come naturally from an individual, as opposed to a performance. Pamela naturally possesses and emanates the attributes of a good example: for beauty, virtue, prudence and generosity […] she has more than any lady […] she has all this naturally; they were born with it (Richardson, p.423). Authenticity seems to influence the power of an example. Pamela is defined as a truer example than “any lady,” because morally positive attributes “are born with her.” This suggests that the appearance of these qualities is naturally more influential than a conscious performance, a simple imitation of a natural example. By being "born" with "beauty, virtue" and "prudence", Richardson implies that it is almost hereditary, rejecting the association of refined sensibility with the upper class. Pamela's parents are ranked socially inferior due to their poverty, but morally they are such powerful examples that it seems to be inherent in their DNA. Perhaps Pamela only maintained this existenceas a natural example thanks to its original position in the social hierarchy. In comparison, Lady Davers's privileged upbringing taught her good public conduct, suggesting that any virtue she displays is a performance. While these eulogies are pronounced by Mr. B., Pamela relates them to the reader in epistolary form. This secondary layer of narrative distances the reader from the reality Pamela experiences, defining her narrative as, however close to realism it may be, a performance. As Gwilliam suggests, the “line” between unconscious and conscious performance is blurred. However, this performative epistolary form is irrelevant when considering Pamela as an example. She is identified as a positive natural example, which corresponds to Gwilliam's more positive definition of the "unconscious" performer. The woman who plays consciously is thus condemned as almost incapable of existing as a positive moral example. After playing the role of Fantomina, Haywood's protagonist constructs a number of different identities – the Widow, the Handmaid, Incognita – each of which consciously engages in public, virtuous behavior. Pamela maintains this virtue in private, while Fantomina submits to both her own desire and that of Beauplaisir: “by these arts of transmitting it like a new Mistress […] I have always delirious, wild, impatient” (Haywood, p.243). Haywood almost encourages condemning Fantomina as a bad example. She actively plays the role of the woman who is unconsciously playing, with each character feigning virginal status and ignorance of Beauplaisir's true nature. However, for Beauplaisir, this performance is a reality; she is for him an “unconscious” interpreter, each time “passing” for a new Mistress. In order to maintain this pretension privately as well, Fantomina must constantly change her identity to meet the demands of Beauplaisir's desire. Therefore, she claims "I have it", implying dominant female possession, but she is as "wild" and "eager" as he is. Fantomina's virtue is a public representation and cannot exist as a positive moral example due to lack of coherence. Her identity and virtue change in private, suggesting that Fantomina does not possess the natural attributes of a virtuous example as Richardson's Pamela does. Refusing this moral example is perhaps embarrassing. She consistently refers to her affairs as “art,” suggesting such a deep submersion in her performance-based reality that she cannot return to a reality to meet the social expectations of this morally positive exemplar. According to Gwilliam, Fantomina is categorized as the woman who "acts consciously", and therefore she cannot naturally emit the power of example. Haywood recognizes Fantomina's actions as a poor example of virtue and instead presents her as a positive example of female independence. The effects of Fantomina's example are therefore powerful, but not in the expected context or in the same context as Pamela's. Until now, the power of example has been assumed to have undeniable influence. Yet both novels also question the “great” external influence of example in relation to one's own conscious and internalized desires. In Haywood's Fantomina, Beauplaisir refuses to act as a morally positive example and instead chooses to gratify his own desire. This is underlined by Fantomina's expectations of how men should "address" women, even when she identifies as a prostitute: she told him she was a virgin, […] [c 'was] far from forcing him to renounce – no, in the present ardent desire of desire (Haywood, p. 30). Gentlemanly behavior is an “[obligation”] for Fantomina, and she adheres to it.especially expects after revealing her virginal status. Yet Beauplaisir's conduct is perhaps immune to the power of a gentleman's example, especially at this moment. With the example, its influence is remembered, and then a period of time passes before it affects the subject. This “longing for desire” is instead identified as existing in the “present,” where spontaneous emotion dominates any influence that may exist in memory. An emphasis is also reflected in the syntax. The dash not only adds breathing, as if to imitate physical pleasure, but creates momentum in the sentence that reflects the increasing progression of the action that Fantomina struggles to slow down. As an experience of the moment, desire takes hold of the person without “the intervention of the will”, like the example effects that Johnson establishes. If desire produces the same effects, but instead comes from internal influence, this suggests that the power of external example is not as "great" as Johnson suggests. Arguably, the power of example could be said to be greater the longer the desire exists as an emotion. However, as soon as this emotion is felt in the “burning” “present”, it also demands to be physically satiated. Desire therefore induces as much action as the power of example influences. Therefore, the "power" of the example is temporarily subdued and termed "great", to the extent that the desire compels imminent action, while the example can be rejected when it still exists as an influence mental. This allows Beauplaisir to ignore the morally positive example presented by gentleman and choose to satisfy his desire. Throughout Fantomina, Beauplaisir is immune to the power of positive example. In Pamela, MB only temporarily adheres to the stereotype of the 18th-century “debauchee.” Her initial refusal to accept responsibility for example moves from Beauplaisir's moment of insistent desire to consistent, genuine love. His original choice, which favors desire rather than following or setting a respectable example, is recounted by Pamela in Letter XI. It is addressed only to his mother, while almost all other letters are addressed to both parents. This suggests that male desire, and its consequences for women, was a subject to be addressed by women alone: ​​"I found myself in his arms, completely devoid of strength, and he kissed me two or three times , as if he had eaten. me” (Richardson, p.23). In her nervous state, Pamela is physically devoid of “strength.” Yet she also actively refuses any emotional action, subsequently denying any felt desire. She “found herself” draped over him and “he kissed her,” emphasizing his dominance over her through the order of pronouns. Only by presenting this experience as undesirable can Pamela be able to fully preserve her virginity, as she refuses even lustful thoughts. Her lack of action is also suggested by MB's almost animalistic strength, becoming primal in his desire to "[eat]" her. This emphasizes the physical “violence” that desire can inadvertently provoke in the desire to be satiated, pushing Mr. B to actions almost “without the intervention of [his] will.” As the novel progresses, the powerful effects of reforming Pamela's good moral example, MB Richardson, suggest that this is only possible through marriage. The sacrament forces MB's relationship with Pamela into the public sphere. She is, by law, now a Lady, and is considered an equal and capable of inflicting her example on her husband. Therefore, the effects of Pamela's virtuous example are consistently more powerful than the "rake" stereotype. However, it is only when, 2001)