Warwick’s Reviews > Clarissa, or, the History of a Young Lady > Status Update

While the sentiment in the last sentence is commendable, I'm not sure the whole jibes with modern sensibilities as much as it first appears. Why does only a 'single' woman prosecuting a 'single' man get such justice? What if she were married? It looks as if the law is attempting to remedy the injury to her reputation and her prospects rather to herself. Hence the third option.

Oh absolutely. It seems bizarre to us now to imagine forcing a woman to marry her rapist, but the focus in those days was the exact opposite – it was about forcing a man to marry someone he had ‘dishonoured’. This was actually debated in parliament, to the disgust of one MP who said, ‘he that doth get a wench with child and marries her afterward it is as if a man should shit in his hat and then clap it upon his head’! I suppose that was why the stress was mainly on single men, although some activists were prepared to accept the idea of polygamy in such cases.

Wow, does Richardson actually understand that rape is bad? I did not get that impression from Pamela.

Yes, it's not always entirely clear..

'Deemster' is an excellent word for judge

Agreed.

Warwick wrote: "Oh absolutely. It seems bizarre to us now to imagine forcing a woman to marry her rapist, but the focus in those days was the exact opposite – it was about forcing a man to marry someone he had ‘di..."

Lamentably, one still hears of similar forced marriages even in our times. But I also saw something rather insidious in the choice of rope or sword not being extended to a married woman. The implication seems to be that since her marriage prospects are beyond harm, such drastic measures would not be considered necessary. (Presumably, vengeance would be her husband's). Whereas, we moderns would be probably think of the woman's (un)married state as being beside the point.

Still, I suppose Richardson's represents an evolution in thought. I was shocked to learn that Chaucer was convicted of rape and got away with just paying compensation. (They never mention that in school for some reason.) Though, there's some ambiguity, since rape could also just refer to abduction or kidnapping.

I don't think Richardson is much of an evolution in thought to be honest. I see him as a pretty representative example of sentimental 18th century bourgeois attitudes.