LETTER XVIII
MR. LOVELACE, TO JOHN BELFORD, ESQ. [IN CONTINUATION.]
But is it not the divine CLARISSA [Harlowe let me not say; my soulspurns them all but her] whom I am thus by application threatening?--Ifvirtue be the true nobility, how is she ennobled, and how shall analliance with her ennoble, were not contempt due to the family from whomshe sprang and prefers to me!
But again, let me stop.--Is there not something wrong, has therenot been something wrong, in this divine creature? And will not thereflections upon that wrong (what though it may be construed in myfavour?*) make me unhappy, when novelty has lost its charms, and when,mind and person, she is all my own? Libertines are nicer, if at allnice, than other men. They seldom meet with the stand of virtue inthe women whom they attempt. And, by the frailty of those they havetriumphed over, they judge of all the rest. 'Importunity and opportunityno woman is proof against, especially from the persevering lover, whoknows how to suit temptations to inclinations:' This, thou knowest, is aprime article of the rake's creed.
* The particular attention of such of the fair sex, as are more apt toread for the same of amusement than instruction, is requested to thisletter of Mr. Lovelace.
And what! (methinks thou askest with surprise) Dost thou question thismost admirable of women?--The virtue of a CLARISSA dost thou question?
I do not, I dare not question it. My reverence for her will not let medirectly question it. But let me, in my turn, ask thee--Is not, may nother virtue be founded rather in pride than in principle? Whose daughteris she?--And is she not a daughter? If impeccable, how came she by herimpeccability? The pride of setting an example to her sex has run awaywith her hitherto, and may have made her till now invincible. But is notthat pride abated? What may not both men and women be brought to do in amortified state? What mind is superior to calamity? Pride is perhaps theprincipal bulwark of female virtue. Humble a woman, and may she not beeffectually humbled?
Then who says Miss Clarissa Harlowe is the paragon of virtue?--Is virtueitself?
All who know her, and have heard of her, it will be answered.
Common bruit!--Is virtue to be established by common bruit only?--Hasher virtue ever been proved?--Who has dared to try her virtue?
I told thee, I would sit down to argue with myself; and I have drawnmyself into argumentation before I was aware.
Let me enter into a strict discussion of this subject.
I know how ungenerous an appearance what I have said, and what I havefurther to say, on this topic, will have from me: But am I not bringingvirtue to the touchstone, with a view to exalt it, if it come out to beproof?--'Avaunt then, for one moment, all consideration that may arisefrom a weakness which some would miscall gratitude; and is oftentimesthe corrupter of a heart most ignoble!'
To the test then--and I will bring this charming creature to thestrictest test, 'that all the sex, who may be shewn any passages in myletters,' [and I know thou cheerest the hearts of all thy acquaintancewith such detached parts of mine as tend not to dishonour charactersor reveal names: and this gives me an appetite to oblige thee byinterlardment,] 'that all the sex, I say, may see what they ought to be;what is expected from them; and if they have to deal with a person ofreflection and punctilio, [of pride, if thou wilt,] how careful theyought to be, by a regular and uniform conduct, not to give him cause tothink lightly of them for favours granted, which may be interpreted intonatural weakness. For is not a wife the keeper of a man's honour? Anddo not her faults bring more disgrace upon a husband than even uponherself?'
It is not for nothing, Jack, that I have disliked the life of shackles.
To the test then, as I said, since now I have the question brought hometo me, Whether I am to have a wife? And whether she be to be a wife atthe first or at the second hand?
I will proceed fairly. I do the dear creature not only strict butgenerous justice; for I will try her by her own judgment, as well as byour principles.
She blames herself for having corresponded with me, a man of freecharacter; and one indeed whose first view it was to draw her into thiscorrespondence; and who succeeded in it by means unknown to herself.
'Now, what were her inducements to this correspondence?' If not what herniceness makes her think blameworthy, why does she blame herself?
Has she been capable of error? Of persisting in that error?
Whoever was the tempter, that is not the thing; nor what the temptation.The fact, the error, is now before us.
Did she persist in it against parental prohibition?
She owns she did.
Was a daughter ever known who had higher notions of the filial duty, ofthe parental authority?
Never.
'What must be the inducements, how strong, that were too strong forduty, in a daughter so dutiful?--What must my thoughts have been ofthese inducements, what my hopes built upon them at the time, taken inthis light?'
Well, but it will be said, That her principal view was to preventmischief between her brother and her other friends, and the man vilelyinsulted by them all.
But why should she be more concerned for the safety of others than theywere for their own? And had not the rencounter then happened? 'Was aperson of virtue to be prevailed upon to break through her apparent, heracknowledged duty, upon any consideration?' And, if not, was she to beso prevailed upon to prevent an apprehended evil only?
Thou, Lovelace, the tempter (thou wilt again break out and say) to bethe accuser!
But I am not the accuser. I am the arguer only, and, in my heart,all the time acquit and worship the divine creature. 'But let me,nevertheless, examine, whether the acquital be owing to her merit, or tomy weakness--Weakness the true name of love!'
But shall we suppose another motive?--And that is LOVE; a motive whichall the world will excuse her for. 'But let me tell all the world thatdo, not because they ought, but because all the world is apt to bemisled by it.'
Let LOVE then be the motive:--Love of whom?
A Lovelace, is the answer.
'Is there but one Lovelace in the world? May not more Lovelaces beattracted by so fine a figure? By such exalted qualities? It was hercharacter that drew me to her: and it was her beauty and good sense thatrivetted my chains: and now all together make me think her a subjectworthy of my attempts, worthy of my ambition.'
But has she had the candour, the openness, to acknowledge that love?
She has not.
'Well then, if love be at the bottom, is there not another fault lurkingbeneath the shadow of that love?--Has she not affectation?--Or is itpride of heart?'
And what results?--'Is then the divine Clarissa capable of loving a manwhom she ought not to love? And is she capable of affectation? And isher virtue founded in pride?--And, if the answer to these questions beaffirmative, must she not then be a woman?'
And can she keep this love at bay? Can she make him, who has beenaccustomed to triumph over other women, tremble? Can she conductherself, as to make him, at times, question whether she loves him orany man; 'yet not have the requisite command over the passion itself insteps of the highest consequence to her honour, as she thinks,' [Iam trying her, Jack, by her own thoughts,] 'but suffer herself to beprovoked to promise to abandon her father's house, and go off withhim, knowing his character; and even conditioning not to marry tillimprobably and remote contingencies were to come to pass? What thoughthe provocations were such as would justify any other woman; yet wasa CLARISSA to be susceptible to provocations which she thinks herselfhighly censurable for being so much moved by?'
But let us see the dear creature resolved to revoke her promise, yetmeeting her lover; a bold and intrepid man, who was more than oncebefore disappointed by her; and who comes, as she knows, prepared toexpect the fruits of her appointment, and resolved to carry her off.And let us see him actually carrying her off, and having her athis mercy--'May there not be, I repeat, other Lovelaces; other likeintrepid, persevering enterprizers; although they may not go to work inthe same way?
&
nbsp; 'And has then a CLARISSA (herself her judge) failed?--In such greatpoints failed?--And may she not further fail?--Fail in the greatestpoint, to which all the other points, in which she has failed, have buta natural tendency?'
Nor say thou, that virtue, in the eye of Heaven, is as much a manly asa womanly grace. By virtue in this place I mean chastity, and to besuperior to temptation; my Clarissa out of the question. Nor ask thou,shall the man be guilty, yet expect the woman to be guiltless, and evenunsuspectible? Urge thou not these arguments, I say, since the wife, bya failure, may do much more injury to the husband, than the husband cando to the wife, and not only to her husband, but to all his family, byobtruding another man's children into his possessions, perhaps to theexclusion of (at least to a participation with) his own; he believingthem all the time to be his. In the eye of Heaven, therefore, the sincannot be equal. Besides I have read in some places that the woman wasmade for the man, not the man for the woman. Virtue then is less to bedispensed with in the woman than in the man.
Thou, Lovelace, (methinks some better man than thyself will say,) toexpect such perfection in a woman!
Yes, I, may I answer. Was not the great Caesar a great rake as towomen? Was he not called, by his very soldiers, on one of his triumphantentries into Rome, the bald-pated lecher? and warning given of him tothe wives, as well as to the daughter of his fellow-citizens? Yet didnot Caesar repudiate his wife for being only in company with Clodius, orrather because Clodius, though by surprise upon her, was found in hers?And what was the reason he gave for it?--It was this, (though a rakehimself, as I have said,) and only this--The wife of Caesar must not besuspected!--
Caesar was not a prouder man than Lovelace.
Go to then, Jack; nor say, nor let any body say, in thy hearing, thatLovelace, a man valuing himself upon his ancestry, is singular in hisexpectations of a wife's purity, though not pure himself.
As to my CLARISSA, I own that I hardly think there ever was such anangel of a woman. But has she not, as above, already taken steps, whichshe herself condemns? Steps, which the world and her own family didnot think her capable of taking? And for which her own family will notforgive her?
Nor think it strange, that I refuse to hear any thing pleaded in behalfof a standard virtue from high provocations. 'Are not provocations andtemptations the tests of virtue? A standard virtue must not be allowedto be provoked to destroy or annihilate itself.
'May not then the success of him, who could carry her thus far, beallowed to be an encouragement for him to try to carry her farther?''Tis but to try. Who will be afraid of a trail for this divine creature?'Thou knowest, that I have more than once, twice, or thrice, put to thefiery trial young women of name and character; and never yet metwith one who held out a month; nor indeed so long as could puzzle myinvention. I have concluded against the whole sex upon it.' And now, ifI have not found a virtue that cannot be corrupted, I will swear thatthere is not one such in the whole sex. Is not then the whole sexconcerned that this trial should be made? And who is it that knows thislady, that would not stake upon her head the honour of the whole?--Lether who would refuse it come forth, and desire to stand in her place.
I must assure thee, that I have a prodigious high opinion of virtue; asI have of all those graces and excellencies which I have not beenable to attain myself. Every free-liver would not say this, nor thinkthus--every argument he uses, condemnatory of his own actions, as somewould think. But ingenuousness was ever a signal part of my character.
Satan, whom thou mayest, if thou wilt, in this case, call my instigator,put the good man of old upon the severest trial. 'To his behaviour underthese trials that good man owed his honour and his future rewards.'An innocent person, if doubted, must wish to be brought to a fair andcandid trial.
Rinaldo, indeed, in Ariosto, put the Mantua Knight's cup of trial fromhim, which was to be the proof of his wife's chastity*--This was hisargument for forbearing the experiment: 'Why should I seek a think Ishould be loth to find? My wife is a woman. The sex is frail. I cannotbelieve better of her than I do. It will be to my own loss, if I findreason to think worse.' But Rinaldo would not have refused the trial ofthe lady, before she became his wife, and when he might have found hisaccount in detecting her.
* The story tells us, that whoever drank of this cup, if his wife werechaste, could drink without spilling; if otherwise, the contrary.
For my part, I would not have put the cup from me, though married, hadit been but in hope of finding reason to confirm my good opinion of mywife's honour; and that I might know whether I had a snake or a dove inmy bosom.
To my point--'What must that virtue be which will not stand atrial?--What that woman who would wish to shun it?'
Well, then, a trial seems necessary for the furthest establishment ofthe honour of so excellent a creature.
And who shall put her to this trial? Who, but the man who has, as shethinks, already induced her in lesser points to swerve?--And this forher own sake in a double sense--not only, as he has been able to makesome impression, but as she regrets the impression made; and so may bepresumed to be guarded against his further attempts.
The situation she is at present in, it must be confessed is adisadvantageous one to her: but, if she overcome, that will redound toher honour.
Shun not, therefore, my dear soul, further trials, nor hate me formaking them.--'For what woman can be said to be virtuous till she hasbeen tried?
'Nor is one effort, one trial, to be sufficient. Why? Because a woman'sheart may at one time be adamant, at another wax'--as I have oftenexperienced. And so, no doubt, hast thou.
A fine time of it, methinks, thou sayest, would the woman have, if theywere all to be tried--!
But, Jack, I am not for that neither. Though I am a rake, I am not arake's friend; except thine and company's.
And be this one of the morals of my tedious discussion--'Let the littlerogues who would not be put to the question, as I may call it, chooseaccordingly. Let them prefer to their favour good honest sober fellows,who have not been used to play dog's tricks: who will be willing totake them as they offer; and, who being tolerable themselves, are notsuspicious of others.'
But what, methinks thou askest, is to become of the lady if she fail?
What?--Why will she not, 'if once subdued, be always subdued?'Another of our libertine maxims. And what an immense pleasure to amarriage-hater, what rapture to thought, to be able to prevail upon sucha woman as Miss Clarissa Harlowe to live with him, without real changeof name!
But if she resist--if nobly she stand her trial?--
Why then I will marry her; and bless my starts for such an angel of awife.
But will she not hate thee?--will she not refuse--
No, no, Jack!--Circumstanced and situated as we are, I am not afraid ofthat. And hate me! Why should she hate the man who loves her upon proof?
And then for a little hint at reprisal--am I not justified in myresolutions of trying her virtue, who is resolved, as I may say, to trymine? Who has declared that she will not marry me, till she has hopes ofmy reformation?
And now, to put an end to this sober argumentation, Wilt thou notthyself (whom I have supposed an advocate for the lady, because I knowthat Lord M. has put thee upon using the interest he thinks thou hast inme, to persuade me to enter the pale; wilt thou not thyself) allow me totry if I cannot awaken the woman in her?--To try if she, with all thatglowing symmetry of parts, and that full bloom of vernal graces, bywhich she attracts every eye, be really inflexible as to the grandarticle?
Let me begin then, as opportunity presents--I will; and watch herevery step to find one sliding one; her every moment to find themoment critical. And the rather, as she spares me not, but takes everyadvantage that offers to puzzle and plague me; nor expect nor thinks meto be a good man.
If she be a woman, and love me, I shall surely catch her once tripping:for love was ever a traitor to its harbourer: and love within, and Iwithout, she will be more than woman, as the poet says, or I less thanma
n, if I succeed not.
Now, Belford, all is out. The lady is mine; shall be more mine.Marriage, I see, is in my power, now she is so. Else perhaps it had not.If I can have her without marriage, who can blame me for trying? If not,great will be her glory, and my future confidence. And well will shemerit the sacrifice I shall make her of my liberty; and from all her sexhonours next to divine, for giving a proof, 'that there was once a womanwhose virtue no trials, no stratagems, no temptations, even from the manshe hated not, could overpower.'
Now wilt thou see all my circulation: as in a glass wilt thou seeit.--CABALA, however, is the word;* nor let the secret escape thee evenin thy dreams.
* This word, whenever used by any of these gentlemen, was agreed to implyan inviolable secret.
Nobody doubts that she is to be my wife. Let her pass for such when Igive the word. 'Mean time reformation shall be my stalking-horse; someone of the women in London, if I can get her hither, my bird.' And somuch for this time.