– it is “only” the duty to one’s neighbour which she misses reading – emphasises her selfishness. Presumably, she is more comfortable reading passages dealing with one’s duty to God (and, by association, to his ministers, with one of whom she has a bastard child) and one’s duty to oneself. However, a cursory survey of AllestreeAllestree, Richard’s account of our “DUTY to our SELVES” shows how far Shamela is from discharging even this – for it means to live “Soberly” and to possess the virtues of humility, meekness, consideration, contentedness with one’s condition, diligence in the care of one’s soul, chastity, and temperance. The reader will be hard-pressed to find evidence of any of these in Shamela. The duty to oneself, AllestreeAllestree, Richard explains, consists in “keeping within those due bounds which God hath set us” (139; Sunday VI) so as to avoid immediate ills (such as sickness or a bad reputation) and to prevent the punishment of hell-fire: “Think with your selves, how you will be able to endure Everlasting Burnings” (preface, section 6, n.p.). Similarly, DelanyDelany, Patrick, correspondent of Richardson names some of the duties to oneself as “ministerial virtues; as being subservient to virtues of greater consequence” (108; sermon VI). While self-interest is acknowledged as a motive for human action, this is legitimate only in the context of the larger scheme of one’s eternal welfare – the opening sentence of the preface to The Whole Duty of Man, section 1, states that the “Treatise” is “a short and Plain Direction to the very meanest Readers, to behave themselves so in this world, that they may be happy for ever, in the next”. Next to the gratitude that, as AllestreeAllestree, Richard emphasizes, is due to God’s mercy, fear of punishment is the most pervasive argument for doing one’s duty, although he also stresses the folly or cruelty of not doing one’s duty to one’s ‘neighbour’ or oneself.
The above-mentioned tripartite structure of The Whole Duty of Man is based on Titus 2.12. From this passage, AllestreeAllestree, Richard states, we learn “That we should live soberly, righteously, and godly in this present world; where the word, Soberly, contains our duty to our Selves; Righteously, our duty to our Neighbour; and Godly, our duty to God” (4; Sunday I). The text as a whole is relatively loosely structured. It is divided into 17 chapters (divisions being based mainly on chapter length), “[o]ne whereof being read every Lord’s Day, the Whole may be read over Thrice in the Year” (title page). Allestree starts with the duty to God, highest and the basis of all other duties, goes on to the duty to one-self, and ends with the duties to other men. These take up roughly 5, 4, and 8 Sundays, respectively. Although cross-references are frequent, they tend to emphasize that all duties – or “debts” (e.g. 267; Sunday XIII) – ultimately are duties to God. Allestree makes it clear that “there is no sin we commit but is either mediately or immediately against [God]. For though there be sins both against our Selves and our Neighbours, yet they being forbidden by God, they are also breaches of his Commandments, and so sins against him” (129; Sunday V). What is usually missing from such cross-references is the attempt to negotiate the relative importance of duties or potential problems when they clash.
AllestreeAllestree, Richard opens the sermons dealing with one’s duty to one’s neighbour with the general duties of “Justice and Charity” (213; Sunday X), which include, among other things, respect towards others’ property and reputation. He proceeds to specific status duties, beginning with the most important and hierarchical one, the duty to “the Civil, the Spiritual, the Natural” parents (i.e. ruler, clergy, and biological parents; 288; Sunday XIV), followed by the duty of parents to their children. He then goes on to “[t]he second sort of Relation […] that of a Brother” (317; Sunday XV). While this “may in the largest extent contain under it all Mankind” (317), Allestree specifically includes under this heading siblings and more distant relations, spouses, friends, and masters and servants. The final sermons mainly concern the duty of charity, which is due to everyone.
Interestingly, AllestreeAllestree, Richard includes some hierarchical relationships in his list of brotherhood ties. He does so without further comment, or is at least not careful to demarcate the point when he ceases to speak of relationships between equals. What seems to matter about ‘brotherhood’ is, apparently, not equality, but closeness. This is all the more remarkable because of the general consensus that the relationship between husband and wife is hierarchical. The early feminist Mary AstellAstell, Mary, for example, concluded that a woman “who Marrys ought to lay it down for an indisputable Maxim, that her Husband must govern absolutely and intirely, and that she has nothing else to do but to Please and Obey” (116). If the tone of her remark is bitterly ironic, she nevertheless subscribed to its general tenor. Because women are valuable beings, and because wives ought nevertheless to obey, women should “duly examine and weigh all the Circumstances, the Good and Evil of a Married State” before they decide for or against it (127; cf. also TaylorTaylor, E. Derek, Reason and Religion 69). Similarly, Hester MulsoMulso, Hester, correspondent of Richardson, who argued against Richardson that the duties of sons must be the same as the duties of daughters, acknowledged a difference of duties in the case of husband and wife – based on the marriage vows (Mulso 236–7). The relationship of brotherhood, then, can be understood only as the relationship between potential, not actual, equals. By grouping together diverse sorts of relationships, Allestree emphasizes anew the paramount importance of the father-child relationship – while skimming over conflicts in other hierarchical relationships.
DelanyDelany, Patrick, correspondent of Richardson’s fifteen sermons are structured more clearly according to content and in a way which highlights the principle of reciprocity. Their focus is the “social duties” – AllestreeAllestree, Richard’s “duty to one’s neighbour”. However, these are clearly to be understood as part of the wider framework of duties detailed in The Whole Duty. Delany makes the explicit link at the outset of sermon VIII: “All the precepts of religion respect either our duty to GOD, to our Neighbour, or to Ourselves: […] the duties we owe to ourselves, are but secondary and subservient to those [other duties]” (139).2 Each sermon takes a particular scriptural quotation for its starting point, and, in most cases, a particular social relationship is allotted exactly one sermon. The first sermon serves as a kind of introduction, insisting, similarly to Allestree, that “Universal Righteousness [is] absolutely necessary to social Honesty” (1). Sermons II and III3 concern the duties of marriage partners, while sermons IV–VII address the duties of parents to children. Interestingly, and in contrast to Allestree, Delany starts with the chronologically earlier duty. Allestree emphasizes the duty due to parents; by placing children’s duties first, he structurally confirms the point which he also makes explicitly, namely that children have no excuse to rebel against a tyrant parent. The rights of parents take precedence over – come before – the welfare of children. If Delany, on the other hand, starts with the parents’ duty, he implicitly stresses parents’ responsibility to their offspring and attributes blame to them if their children should be undutiful.4 And when, again like Allestree (298), he includes gratitude as a reason for obedience, he tacitly acknowledges that filial gratitude requires parental kindness. This is not, however, to say that Delany does not take children’s duty (sermons VIII–IX) seriously. In one point, he goes even further than AllestreeAllestree, Richard, stating that “I have often admired it, as a glorious instance of discipline in the Jewish commonwealth, that an undutiful child was to be stoned to death by the people” (149). The term ‘admiration’ is clearly not meant in the sense of ‘wonder’ – in the next passage, Delany continues to call this law “the wisest institution that ever obtained in any nation” (150).5
Sermon X is concerned with servants’ duties to masters, its counterpart, XI, with masters’ duties to servants. Sermons XII–XIII are concerned with more general relationships among men, particularly the duty of paying debts. Based on the same quotation, DelanyDelany, Patrick, correspondent of Richardson goes on, in sermon XIII, to discourse on the duty of love. Sermon XIV concerns the duties of a ruler toward his subjects, a topic which AllestreeAllestree, Richard had refused to discuss – a difference which may be explained in the different political situation. Allestree, a royalist writing shortly before the Restoration, had reason enough to complain that most people were “already much better read” in the “duty of their Supreme” than in their own (291; Sunday XIV). Delany’s final sermon, XV, concerns the “[m]utual Duty of