I am sad to be done with the discussions of Hogarth, Joseph Andrews and the Pamela media event. The subjects of class and gender are particularly interesting in the eighteenth century urban milieu of London. I did have one last thought to add about servants and dress.
Though Richardson and Fielding weave fictional narratives around a true contemporary view of servants as visual (and sexual) showpieces, gender difference determines not only the manner in which Joseph and Pamela interpret and react to the sexual advances of their employers, but also how much resistance each may show and keep their good reputation.
The reality of post seduction career opportunities for women, however, were much more limited than they would have been for a man sleeping 'out of turn.' Seduced women would be thrown out without a character reference and presumably left to prostitution or starvation in the metropolis. But what of ruined males? Joseph might be turned out of service, and though his body was now 'tainted' by immorality, it would not commit him to exclusivly sexual work in the future, as it would have for the female servant who had been seduced. Another key difference was payment. Maids who became pregnant or were thrown out of the house for sexual misconduct were not paid. In Fielding's novel, Joseph is dismissed but paid first, and sets out upon the road to adventure, where he expects gainful employment in the broad field of service. Though men and women both sold their bodies in exchange for economic stability, the woman's bodily labor was sexual, and the mans was not.
The heavy concentration of prostitutes in eighteenth century London was noted by foreign visitors as being considerably higher than other European cities, even Paris, as noted by M. Grosley. Popular eighteenth century novels referenced prostitutes (Moll Flanders) and servants (Pamela, Joseph Andrews) and the connection between the two was not lost on employers of servants or readers of books.
"Ruined males." This is a new concept for me, Joelle, in any century. The only instance with which I am familiar would be if a man were forced into homosexual relations and it became known --he then might be rejected on account of his victimization and lack of "manliness." Other than that, it is more a feather in their cap than a negative. Lady Booby pretty much said the same thing when she rejected the idea of male "virtue."
ReplyDeleteThen and now, men seem immune to being criticized on account of their extramarital and premarital heterosexual sexual activities -- unless, of course, they are American politicians.
Sharon
I don't how much I agree with Sharon and you, Joelle. In the generalization of the eighteenth and later centuries, yes, male virtue and "ruined males" were more often than not, exempt from the same fate as females in their place. A woman would be dismissed without pay and a man might be dismissed, but if he was, he was paid (as you so acutely pointed out). However, I don't agree that men could readily "expect gainful employment in the broad field of service." What about characters? Joseph might be paid, but he would be sent out of the house without a character reference to find him new employment, along with the taint that he knocks up maids...So I think that, along with the gender card, there is a monetary motive at play and it's too important to be forgotten without consideration.
ReplyDeleteBut other than that, I think you're right: a man's virtue was dismissed out of hand and he would - in the general scheme of things - probably find gainful employment before his pregnant female counterpart would (or could, with a baby on her knee, ever again).