John Cleland (1) (1709–1789)
Author of Fanny Hill, or, Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure
For other authors named John Cleland, see the disambiguation page.
About the Author
Born in London, England in 1709, John Cleland studied at Westminster School. After working and traveling abroad, Cleland wrote the book that has made him notoriously famous to this day. The novel, Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure, also known as Fanny Hill, details the life and loves of a prostitute show more in 18th century London. A bestseller in its time, Fanny Hill has been heavily censored by various establishments since its inception. In 1749, Cleland was arraigned and reprimanded by the Privy Council in London for his literary obscenity. As a punishment, Cleland was ordered to pay 100 pounds annually and promise not to repeat the offense again. In the early 1960s the highest courts in New Jersey and Massachusetts declared the erotica novel obscene, but on appeal the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the judgments and cleared the book for publication. Cleland, who also spent time studying Celtic philosophy and dramaturgy, died in 1789 at the age of 80. (Bowker Author Biography) show less
Image credit: http://www.nls.uk/exhibitions/banned-books/sex
Works by John Cleland
By John Cleland Fanny Hill: Or, Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure (Penguin Classics) (Reprint) [Paperback] (1985) 4 copies
Specimen of an etimological vocabulary, or, Essay, by means of the analitic method, to retrieve the antient Celtic. (2023) 2 copies
Associated Works
Pages Passed from Hand to Hand: The Hidden Tradition of Homosexual Literature in English from 1748 to 1914 (1998) — Contributor — 185 copies, 1 review
Tagged
Common Knowledge
- Birthdate
- 1709-09-24 (baptism)
- Date of death
- 1789-01-23
- Gender
- male
- Education
- Westminster School, London
- Occupations
- soldier
civil servant
novelist - Nationality
- UK
- Birthplace
- Kingston-upon-Thames, Surrey, England, UK
- Places of residence
- London, Middlesex, England, UK
Bombay, India - Burial location
- St Margaret's churchyard, London, Middlesex, England, UK
- Map Location
- England, UK
Members
Reviews
Gorgeous language; for all its transparent euphemisms, total porn. Love it, though Cleland really does not need to use the word "vermillion" quite so much.
Also Fanny is a bit close-minded about certain things, which the afterword in this edition describes as "the more outlandish practices [...] such as sodomy, lesbianism and flagellation". For the latter two cases it notes Fanny describing the tastes of Phoebe and Mr Barvile as "arbitrary" and "unaccountable" (though she participates with show more both without regretting it). This much suits said afterward's thematic discourse very well, so it promptly forgets to mention that she describes the instance of sodomy she witnesses as "odious" and "criminal". She'd even dob in the people involved if she didn't trip over herself in her haste and half knock herself out; and when she tells Mrs Cole about it, the latter says a good deal nastier.
I would dearly love to see some fanfic in which Charles discovers her memoir and, having had his own experiences while at sea, educates her (through explanation, narration, and some pleasant demonstration or two) about the wonders of the masculine "seat of pleasure".... show less
Also Fanny is a bit close-minded about certain things, which the afterword in this edition describes as "the more outlandish practices [...] such as sodomy, lesbianism and flagellation". For the latter two cases it notes Fanny describing the tastes of Phoebe and Mr Barvile as "arbitrary" and "unaccountable" (though she participates with show more both without regretting it). This much suits said afterward's thematic discourse very well, so it promptly forgets to mention that she describes the instance of sodomy she witnesses as "odious" and "criminal". She'd even dob in the people involved if she didn't trip over herself in her haste and half knock herself out; and when she tells Mrs Cole about it, the latter says a good deal nastier.
I would dearly love to see some fanfic in which Charles discovers her memoir and, having had his own experiences while at sea, educates her (through explanation, narration, and some pleasant demonstration or two) about the wonders of the masculine "seat of pleasure".... show less
Don’t read this book if you dislike graphic descriptions of sex, because it’s chock full of it. Written in 1748, it’s very easy to see why it was banned for more than two centuries. “Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure”, more commonly known by the title of one if it’s later edited down versions, “Fanny Hill”, reads like soft-core porn. There is a semblance of a story: young Fanny Hill (wink wink, a synonym for mons veneris) is orphaned and taken by a family “friend” to London, show more where she’s promptly abandoned. She’s only 15, but men and boarding house madams have no qualms about preying on her. She quickly adapts, going through several sexual relationships and prostitution, but far from coming to actual harm, she enjoys it. She progresses from nervous virgin to ‘woman of pleasure’, more than willing to submit and experiment.
Critics point out that it’s male fantasy, and they’re certainly correct, but in one sense it seemed as honest to me, even as fantasy, compared with almost all other fiction before the 20th century, which completely avoid the subject of sex as if it doesn’t exist at all.
Cleland, on the other hand, takes it to an extreme. I counted 30 (yes, 30!) sex scenes in the 188 pages in the two volumes. That’s about one scene every six pages, and as each scene is typically a few pages long … well, this book is probably 50% sex by page count alone, and 95% sex by intention. Cleland cloaks it in a love interest and points out that sex without love isn’t the same, but it’s clearly just a vehicle for him to explicitly describe fantasy after fantasy, progressively getter edgier as he goes. The positions start off pretty basic, but in volume two they get more diverse (I’ll spare you the details), and there is voyeurism, sex in front of other couples, one scene of S&M, and one scene of (gasp) homosexuality, though for that one Cleland has Fanny quickly (and hypocritically) condemn it.
Frankly I’m tempted to rate the book higher because all this sex is wrapped up in beautiful, quaint 18th century language which I smiled over and found pretty erotic at times, it’s so unique for the time period, and it points out ways sex is the same throughout the centuries, and ways it (or our understanding of it) was different. It’s interesting to me that the female orgasm was thought to involve an emission, and that oral sex plays no part here at all.
However, I have to be balanced. It’s so overkill in quantity that the power of any one scene is reduced. You may have to read it concurrently with another book as I did, which is rare for me, because it’s hard to stay “in the mood” for nonstop sex descriptions at all times of day while reading (or while others are around, lol). There are a few scenes that resemble reality, e.g. men who are either hideous or less than virile, but by and large it’s so over-the-top in fantasy, and includes cringe-inducing scenes where Fanny is basically raped, taken by force, but goes along with it and enjoys it.
This edition was also annoying despite a great cover, showing Boucher’s “Reclining Girl” from 1751, an eye-goggling classic from Munich’s Alte Pinakothek. The font was too small, and the annotated explanatory notes were not only repetitive and obvious at times, but also committed the cardinal sin of revealing the ending, ruining what little plot there was. Grrr. It’s as if the editor was the annoying kid who constantly needs to raise his hand in class. If you do read it, I’d suggest something other than ‘Oxford World’s Classics’.
Anyway, would the book be better if Cleland toned down the sex, introduced some of the horrors of prostitution (STD’s, violence, addiction, depression), and peered realistically into a frightened, traumatized girl’s psyche? Definitely. But I suppose then it wouldn’t be Fanny Hill. I’m glad it survives, and I’m glad I read it. show less
Critics point out that it’s male fantasy, and they’re certainly correct, but in one sense it seemed as honest to me, even as fantasy, compared with almost all other fiction before the 20th century, which completely avoid the subject of sex as if it doesn’t exist at all.
Cleland, on the other hand, takes it to an extreme. I counted 30 (yes, 30!) sex scenes in the 188 pages in the two volumes. That’s about one scene every six pages, and as each scene is typically a few pages long … well, this book is probably 50% sex by page count alone, and 95% sex by intention. Cleland cloaks it in a love interest and points out that sex without love isn’t the same, but it’s clearly just a vehicle for him to explicitly describe fantasy after fantasy, progressively getter edgier as he goes. The positions start off pretty basic, but in volume two they get more diverse (I’ll spare you the details), and there is voyeurism, sex in front of other couples, one scene of S&M, and one scene of (gasp) homosexuality, though for that one Cleland has Fanny quickly (and hypocritically) condemn it.
Frankly I’m tempted to rate the book higher because all this sex is wrapped up in beautiful, quaint 18th century language which I smiled over and found pretty erotic at times, it’s so unique for the time period, and it points out ways sex is the same throughout the centuries, and ways it (or our understanding of it) was different. It’s interesting to me that the female orgasm was thought to involve an emission, and that oral sex plays no part here at all.
However, I have to be balanced. It’s so overkill in quantity that the power of any one scene is reduced. You may have to read it concurrently with another book as I did, which is rare for me, because it’s hard to stay “in the mood” for nonstop sex descriptions at all times of day while reading (or while others are around, lol). There are a few scenes that resemble reality, e.g. men who are either hideous or less than virile, but by and large it’s so over-the-top in fantasy, and includes cringe-inducing scenes where Fanny is basically raped, taken by force, but goes along with it and enjoys it.
This edition was also annoying despite a great cover, showing Boucher’s “Reclining Girl” from 1751, an eye-goggling classic from Munich’s Alte Pinakothek. The font was too small, and the annotated explanatory notes were not only repetitive and obvious at times, but also committed the cardinal sin of revealing the ending, ruining what little plot there was. Grrr. It’s as if the editor was the annoying kid who constantly needs to raise his hand in class. If you do read it, I’d suggest something other than ‘Oxford World’s Classics’.
Anyway, would the book be better if Cleland toned down the sex, introduced some of the horrors of prostitution (STD’s, violence, addiction, depression), and peered realistically into a frightened, traumatized girl’s psyche? Definitely. But I suppose then it wouldn’t be Fanny Hill. I’m glad it survives, and I’m glad I read it. show less
If I could go back in time and track Cleland down for a nice chat, I'd smack him in the face with a clipboard and watch him like a hawk till he'd read through the list clipped there in its entirety. Better yet, I'd take a woman and a man back with me, both of them less concerned with feminism issues to an unholy extent than I, and let the conversings about the genders commence. Maybe then, perhaps, I'd figure this author out.
The list? An abridged version of the following.
If you've seen my show more review of [Delta of Venus], you know I take erotica seriously. That whole spiel about increasing respect and social justice and all that jazz? Still relevant, sadly so when considering this piece appeared in 1749. That's 265 years ago, 18th century stuff alongside the likes of Voltaire and Swift and we're still mucking around in slut shaming. Seriously! This is a classic written by a dead white male two and a half centuries ago, and it's chock full of feminism! Second wave feminism at that! Where are the feminist scholars and, more importantly, where are the rest of those classics/elitist/whatever your name for those in the literature "know" who are reading this without taking a single smidgen away from it besides the fact that it's bad erotica?
Yes, bad erotica. While it may have done the job more than 250 years ago, these days people like their porn with a little more...well. Now that I think about it, a great deal of today's Fifty Shades of Grey readers don't actually mind if the biology's a little off so long as there's plenty of writhing and fingering and whipping, which this work has in full. The only difference really is Cleland's constant hitting home the fact that, while women have different equipment, they have the same need for pleasure and more importantly respectful pleasure, whomever the companion they happen to be with. Now that's something that could put modern readers off.
Of course, there are problematic aspects, namely the homophobia, the pretense of sex only being successful when dick thrusting is involved and resulting invalidation of female pleasure, the multiple instances of sexual assault rapid fire forgiven because the assaulter was attractive/pitiful/remorseful/what have you. Less problematic and more absurd were the multiple male orgasms business: so sorry, men, but your refractory period averages a half hour and can even go on for days, whereas women, you're good to go.
Also, the synonyms for penis. I'm not even going to go into that. If you want a list, the book's been around for a while. Spoilers abound and may even be carefully categorized.
Besides all that, not only does Fanny Hill like sex so long as her partner's not an asshole, she likes educating herself! Behold.
No wonder the unabridged version's been taken to trial as recently as 1963, as god forbid a woman reconcile body and mind so ardently. Yeesh.
While I'm at it, have some more breakdowns of female stereotypes:
You're welcome. show less
The list? An abridged version of the following.
If you've seen my show more review of [Delta of Venus], you know I take erotica seriously. That whole spiel about increasing respect and social justice and all that jazz? Still relevant, sadly so when considering this piece appeared in 1749. That's 265 years ago, 18th century stuff alongside the likes of Voltaire and Swift and we're still mucking around in slut shaming. Seriously! This is a classic written by a dead white male two and a half centuries ago, and it's chock full of feminism! Second wave feminism at that! Where are the feminist scholars and, more importantly, where are the rest of those classics/elitist/whatever your name for those in the literature "know" who are reading this without taking a single smidgen away from it besides the fact that it's bad erotica?
Yes, bad erotica. While it may have done the job more than 250 years ago, these days people like their porn with a little more...well. Now that I think about it, a great deal of today's Fifty Shades of Grey readers don't actually mind if the biology's a little off so long as there's plenty of writhing and fingering and whipping, which this work has in full. The only difference really is Cleland's constant hitting home the fact that, while women have different equipment, they have the same need for pleasure and more importantly respectful pleasure, whomever the companion they happen to be with. Now that's something that could put modern readers off.
Men know not in general how much they destroy of their own pleasure when they break through the respect and tenderness due to our sex, and even to those of it who live only by pleasing them.
Of course, there are problematic aspects, namely the homophobia, the pretense of sex only being successful when dick thrusting is involved and resulting invalidation of female pleasure, the multiple instances of sexual assault rapid fire forgiven because the assaulter was attractive/pitiful/remorseful/what have you. Less problematic and more absurd were the multiple male orgasms business: so sorry, men, but your refractory period averages a half hour and can even go on for days, whereas women, you're good to go.
Also, the synonyms for penis. I'm not even going to go into that. If you want a list, the book's been around for a while. Spoilers abound and may even be carefully categorized.
Besides all that, not only does Fanny Hill like sex so long as her partner's not an asshole, she likes educating herself! Behold.
...he it was who first taught me to be sensible that the pleasures of the mind were superior to those of the body; at the same time, that they were so far from obnoxious to or incompatible with each other that, besides the sweetness in the variety and transition, the one serv'd to exalt and perfect the taste of the other to a degree that the senses alone can never arrive at.
No wonder the unabridged version's been taken to trial as recently as 1963, as god forbid a woman reconcile body and mind so ardently. Yeesh.
While I'm at it, have some more breakdowns of female stereotypes:
Silks, laces, earrings, pearl necklace, gold watch, in short, all the trinkets and articles of dress were lavishly heap'd upon me; the sense of which, if it did not create turns of love, forc'd a kind of grateful fondness, something like love; a distinction it would be spoiling the pleasure of nine tenths of the keepers in the town to make, and is, I suppose, the very good reason why so few of them ever do make it.
...all my looks and gestures ever breathing nothing but that innocence which the men so ardently require in us, for no other end than to feast themselves with the pleasures of destroying it, and which they are so greviously, with all their skill, subject to mistakes to.
You're welcome. show less
I read this with my feminist radar deliberately turned on. And, I found much that I liked from that perspective. Women enjoying sex. One character being the architect of her "deflowering". The description of sex from the perspective of "engulfing" and not always "penetrating". And the overall format of a woman writing to another woman...this was not a story told to arouse men (in the conceit of the novel...the actual book, well....)
I also found some very male perspectives. For example, sex show more between two women is erotic; between two men, it is an abomination. And prostitution is presented as a great job for women. We have "happy hookers", nice customers, fair madams, no pimps, no STDs, no addictions....
The language throughout the book is beautiful. Only towards the end does the book develop a plot.
So good and bad, but the writing alone would make this a classic. show less
I also found some very male perspectives. For example, sex show more between two women is erotic; between two men, it is an abomination. And prostitution is presented as a great job for women. We have "happy hookers", nice customers, fair madams, no pimps, no STDs, no addictions....
The language throughout the book is beautiful. Only towards the end does the book develop a plot.
So good and bad, but the writing alone would make this a classic. show less
Lists
18th Century (1)
BBC Top Books (1)
My TBR (1)
A Novel Cure (1)
Kink Classics (1)
Read in 2014 (1)
1750s (1)
Awards
You May Also Like
Associated Authors
Statistics
- Works
- 29
- Also by
- 3
- Members
- 3,905
- Popularity
- #6,484
- Rating
- 3.2
- Reviews
- 67
- ISBNs
- 370
- Languages
- 18
- Favorited
- 2