vagantly
from the pulpit of St. Saviour's in Southwark within two months of its
initial printing. Even the "Objections" voiced by several correspondents
and published at the beginning of the second edition of _Pamela_ (14
February 1741) seemed relatively inconsequential when weighed against
the _Gentleman's Magazine's_ assertion in January 1741 that every
Londoner with the slightest curiosity was reading _Pamela_.[1]

Literary and moral opposition to _Pamela_ gradually began to mount,
however. April 1741 saw the publication of the first and perhaps most
perceptive attacks on Richardson's novel: _An Apology for the Life of
Mrs. Shamela Andrews_ appeared on 2 April, followed by _Pamela Censured:
In a Letter to the Editor_ some twenty-three days later. While we now
feel certain that Henry Fielding wrote _Shamela_, the author of _Pamela
Censured_ has eluded us.[2] Though both works attack _Pamela_ on moral
grounds and incidentally make unflattering comments about Colley Cibber,
their literary methods differ so greatly that it is impossible to tell
whether or not _Shamela_ influenced _Pamela Censured_ to any extent.

Fielding's parody is too well known to be described in detail here.
Though his sophisticated wit lashes out in a number of directions, he
attacks _Pamela_ on primarily two fronts: in prefatory letters he
assails those who would praise Richardson's novel for its moral lessons,
while in the body of _Shamela_ he burlesques the psychological
motivations of Pamela herself, showing that she is motivated by
mercenary "vartue" rather than angelic virtue. In spite of its hasty
composition, _Shamela_ clearly displays a kind of literary charm and
insight that was soon to characterize _Joseph Andrews_ and _Tom Jones_.

Because it lacks Fielding's wit, _Pamela Censured_ is now almost
forgotten even though it elicited an even stronger response than
_Shamela_ from some of Richardson's defenders and detractors. The
"Introduction" to _Pamela's Conduct in High Life_ (1741), for instance,
airily dismisses _Shamela's_ "low Humour adapted to the Standard of a
_petit Maitre's_ Capacity" which has been applauded only "among the Weak
and Vicious." By contrast, the same work devotes an entire four pages to
answering the various charges levelled by _Pamela Censured_ after first
attacking its author for giving readers "such an Idea of his own vicious
Inclination, that it would not ... wrong him to think the Shrieks of a
Woman in Labour