The popular courtship novel in English, the form that becomes known as the âromance novelâ by the mid-twentieth century, has a widely recognized âfirstâ title: Samuel Richardsonâs best seller Pamela; or, Virtue Rewarded.1 First published in London in 1740, exported immediately to the colonies, Pamela was printed by Benjamin Franklin in 1742â1744, thus becoming the first novel published in America.2 It was also the first romance novel printed in America, marking the beginning of a history of American romance publication unbroken to this day. Franklinâs choice of Pamela reflected the popularity of the novel on both sides of the Atlantic.3 Although I have briefly traced the broad outlines of the history of the American romance novel from colonial times to the present, placing Pamela at the beginning of the mostly unwritten history of the American romance novel,4 and although I have explored Pamelaâs significance for the history of the romance form,5 a fuller exploration of Pamela in America is in order. In part because historians of the American novel have evinced an almost allergic reaction to the romance formâwhich ends happilyâthe significance of Pamelaâs story for the early American novel has been obscured. Instead of viewing Pamela as a shorter, lesser warm-up for Clarissa, whose tragic plot was read as a dire warning for democracyâs dangers, the story of Pamelaâs courtship and its ending in a successful marriage in fact illustrates the new ideas of companionate union in the early Republic. In its widely available abridged form, her story anticipates by almost two centuries the short contemporary romance novel of the Harlequin and Silhouette type. Pamelaâs story, like Clarissaâs, has immediate successors in the early American novel, and they in turn engender a continuous line of daughter narratives, the most recent of which are on the shelves and the e-reader screens of romance readers across the world. With Pamelaâs place in American literary history more fully understood, we can identify her American heiresses and begin to write the history of the American branch of this popular genre, the romance novel.
In classifying Pamela as a âseduction novel,â literary historians have obscured part of Pamela Andrewsâs significance to the early American novel. Building on John Adamsâs claim that âdemocracy is Lovelace, and the people Clarissaâ these historians have constructed a compelling case for the importance of the seduction plot in early American literature.6 They have found Clarissa Harloweâs story, the plot of a heroine cruelly seduced and left to die, in a number of early American novels such as Susanna Rowsonâs Charlotte Temple (1794) and Hannah Webster Fosterâs The Coquette (1794).7 Indeed, Clarissa ends tragically. Adamsâs famous analogy between on the one hand the novelâs protagonists and on the other hand the action of democracy on a vulnerable populace furnishes a grim view of the dangers Adams saw as inherent in the political foundation of government in the new nation. However, literary historians have mistakenly swept Pamela up in Clarissaâs wake, where she remains. In a recent account of Richardsonâs novels in this American literary tradition, Anna Mae Duane cites not only âClarissaâs sentiment-laden decline and deathâ as a model for early American seduction fiction, but also âPamelaâs meek virtue [which] wins her a husband.â8 However, Pamela differs from Clarissa. Consider this rewrite of Adamsâs claim, substituting for the triumphant rake and the seduced, doomed virgin, the reformed rake and triumphant wife: âDemocracy is Bâ, and the people Pamela.â In contrast to the dark nightmare of Adamsâs claim about Clarissa Harlowe, a comparison using Pamela offers a vision of democracy domesticated by the people.9 Bâ, the rake-in-need-of-reformation instantly recognizable to a reader of twentieth-first-century romances, begins the novel with a series of scenes in which he attempts seduction, but by the middle of the novel, this effort to compromise Pamela has become a courtship, and the novel ends with a betrothal and marriage. The union of the protagonists, the happily-ever-after, or âHEA,â is a distinguishing feature of what would come to be called the âromance novel.â Indeed, the two best-known definitions of that form insist upon it. In my own definition of the term, âbetrothalâ indicates this HEA: âA romance novel is a work of prose fiction that tells the story of the courtship and betrothal of one or more heroines,â10 or more generally, one or more âprotagonists.â11 A more thematic, open-ended definition is offered by The Romance Writers of America, the professional association for romance authors, yet it still insists on the HEA: âTwo basic elements comprise every romance novel: a central love story and an emotionally satisfying and optimistic ending.â12 To put it bluntly, unlike Clarissa Harlowe, Pamela Andrews wins. She does not die, she is not seduced or raped, she retains her virtue, and she triumphs, ending the novel with an independent income, with a secure portion for her once destitute parents, with social standing as the lady of the manor, and with a husband whom she, by her example, has reformed. Richardson tells us that after Bââs marriage to Pamela, he became âremarkable for Piety, Virtue, and all the Social Duties of a Man and a Christian.â13 This is not the description of a seducer, nor a metaphor for a menace to the citizens of a democracy.
This blind spot in the history of the American novel is a testament to the extent to which our courtship novels, which is to say our romance novels, have been unacknowledged as critics simply read in spite of or around the elements of their form, including the HEA. This critical lacuna began with the influential early critics who established the canon and pioneered the exploration of the American novel, it persists through the most influential critical consideration of the post 1972-boom of popular romance fiction, and the gap is still evident in the statements of recent critics who are part of the ongoing project of recovering eighteenth- and nineteenth-century American womenâs fiction, especially the sentimental novel.
F. O. Matthiessen, whose American Renaissance (1941) established the canon of nineteenth-century American letters, makes the following claim when he turns from consideration of the works of Ralph Waldo Emerson and Henry David Thoreau to explain the literary scene that Nathaniel Hawthorne (1804â1864) encountered: âFiction in New England had hardly advanced since Royall Tyler had sensed the stirring of a new audience for novels, at the end of the eighteenth century.â14 For Matthiessen, the works of Susan Warner, Maria Cummins and âMrs.â E. D. E. N. Southworth fell far short of literary art. He quotes Hawthorne: â[W]orse they could not be, and better they need not be,â a damning, whining lament.15 Yet Matthiessen also quotes a passage from Hawthorneâs sketch âThe Hall of Fantasy,â in which the narrator places Richardson, along with Henry Fielding and Sir Walter Scott, among the ârulers and demigods in the realms of imagination.â16 Despite this endorsement, Matthiessen quotes Hawthorneâs now-infamous description of Richardsonâs American heirs, calling the best-selling writers of his day that âdamned mob of scribbling women,â whose books âsell by the hundred thousand.â17 Any âadvanceâ that Matthiessen was willing to recognize did not include these sentimental writers of courtship tales.
Leslie A. Fiedler, in Love and Death in the American Novel (1960), characterizes his project in that now-iconic work as an exploration of âthe failure of the American fictionist to deal with adult heterosexual love and his consequent obsession with death, incest and innocent homosexuality.â18 âAdult heterosexual loveâ is overwhelmingly the subject of the romance novel, albeit not often, in America, written by any âhim.â Fiedler considers the place of Richardson in American literary history, but focuses on Clarissa, defining the ground of inquiry away from marriage, away from the HEA of the courtship tale: â[T]he struggle over the virtue of Clarissa has been moved from the arena of marriage to that of maidenhood.â19 Thus Fielder ignoresâand condemnsâwhat he calls the âsentimental love religionâ of nineteenth-century American popular fiction.â20
Critics of the post-boom twentieth-century romance novel are similarly dismissive. Janice A. Radway, in her early and influential ethnographic exploration of a romance reading community, claims that the romance novel âreaffirms its founding cultureâs belief that women are valuable ⊠for their biological sameness and their ability to perform the essential role of maintaining and reconstituting others.â21 Patriarchy is at the root of this stifling reaffirmation of what she calls the âpresent situationâ of the romance readers she studiesâthat is, of their married state.22 Radway, as well as a number of other critics, condemns the romance on different grounds from those cited by Matthiessen and Fiedler, but the rejection is no less absolute.23
Making a cautious departure from this critical dismissal, more recent historians of nineteenth-century American womenâs writing, most notably Cathy N. Davidson, describe Americaâs âfirst novelsâ with their focus on courtship and the attendant âgood or bad decisions in sexual and marital mattersâ that confront the heroines of these works, as presenting themes of âinformed choice,â even going so far as to assert that these works âare not the frothy fictions that we commonly take them to be.â24 Yet this apologetic, ânot the frothy fictionsâ view of courtship tales still undervalues the HEA. Cindy Weinstein, like Davidson, working to expand our understanding of American novels neglected by scholars, analyzes a series of texts that end in marriage, the most famous of which is Susan Warnerâs Wide, Wide World, offering this defensive account of the HEA of that novel: â[T]he conventional nature of this conclusion [the marriage of the heroine] is not necessarily a basis fo...