As I was reviewing our most recent reading from "Moll Flanders," trying to decide what to write about, I was reminded of a Bible verse I was taught as a child concerning the realm of things "unknown" (or more perfectly, the answer that religious persons love to give to "skeptics" concerning the validity of the scriptures, but that is another subject entirely). The verse reads, "For now we see through a glass darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even also as I am known" (1 Corinthians 13:12). The general idea is that, until we meet god "face to face," we will only know the "ways of god" in part, because the scriptures only provide us with a foggy lens. While I don't consider myself a religious person, the thought of dark glass came to mind when reading about the "fortunes and misfortunes" of Moll. In the preface, Mr. Defoe attempts to sway readers toward a more "perfect" reading of the history of Moll, stating that, if one "knows how to read it...such readers will be much more pleas'd with the moral, than the fable" (40). He suggests even further that because there is not a "wicked action"in any part of the story that is not "rendered unhappy and unfortunate," that this "abundantly attones for all the lively description she gives to her folly and wickedness" (40-41). Despite (or in some cases, because of) Mr. Defoe's impassioned attempts to "paint" the reading of "Moll Flanders"in Christian tones, much is left to question, especially considering the "she" who is giving the descriptions of folly and wickedness. It goes without saying that a man "speaking" as a woman is problematic. However, this man-as-woman voice coupled with Defoe's urge to readers to read this as purely a Christian cautionary tale of a woman's fall into debauchery (and eventual redemption, we can assume), proves extremely contradictory on multiple levels.
At the beginning of the story, after we learn that Moll was left by her mother "in bad hands" (or, with gypsies) as a baby, Moll tells us that she ended up at Colchester in Essex, and that although she can't recall exactly what happened, she has a notion that she "left them there... and wouldn't go any further with them" (46-47). The text seems to suggest that she knew the people she was with were un-godly, so she hid from them. However, to suggest that a child who is "not above three," would discern such a thing, is far-fetched (I mean, seriously?). We see an example of this again when, at ten years old, she is living with her "mere" mother. One day, she is visited by Mrs. Mayoress, and she is "terrible frightened at first," though she "did not know why"(50). This passage seems to foreshadow the eminent downfall that Moll will experience. Both of these passages (along with others) imply an innate moral compass that warns and guides Moll even before she is beyond the age of "innocence." In other words, Defoe ascribes adult moral implications to a child's natural response (fear) to her circumstances (something that a mother, perhaps, would not be so quick to ascribe).
Another source of contention within the text is found after Moll is living at the house of Mrs. Mayoress. Moll states that, knowing that she was prettier and more talented than the Mayoress' two daughters, she had, "the common vanity" of her sex--that same vanity that she professed would be the cause of her ruin (55). Now, this admission of vanity is not all by itself problematic, but a few pages later, as Moll describes her "correspondence" with the elder brother, she pauses to charge young readers to "guard themselves against the mischiefs which attend an early knowledge of their own beauty," going on to say that, "if a young woman once thinks herself handsome, she never doubts the truth of any man, that tells her he is in love with her" (59). Although a warning against vanity seems somewhat appropriate considering the context of Defoe's "history," to proclaim so blatantly that for a woman to think herself beautiful will undoubtedly thrust her into the arms of any man who claims to love her--and to do so with a woman's voice, shatters any illusion of authenticity. Not only is it demeaning to suggest that a woman shouldn't think herself beautiful, but it perpetuates a male-dominated "morality," that insists upon a "woman's virtue" but justifies its absence in themselves. Even more rallying for this kind of morality is found in Defoe's depiction of the elder brother, who is less-than-selfless in his earnest pleas with Moll to marry his brother Robert (instead of himself). Now, Moll does recognize this, when, after recalling how cleverly he answered all her objections, she relays that he persuaded his brother of the service he had done (in securing the proposal), which, "was not indeed done to serve him, but to serve himself; but thus diligently did he cheat him, and had the thanks of a faithful friend for shifting off his whore into his brother's arms for a wife" (88). On the surface, because Moll recognizes this manipulation of the older brother, it seems that Defoe may be inciting pity for her plight. However, the older brother suffers no consequences for his actions, even though it is his fault that Moll has "lost her reputation" (86). Furthermore, although Defoe reveals that the brother's actions are unkind, we learn even in the preface that Defoe appropriates abandonment if it is done in the name of repentance: "The repentance of her lover at the Bath, and how brought by the just alarm of his fit of sickness to abandon her... [this story, along with others in this book] has more real beauty in them than all the amorous chain of story, which introduces it" (brackets are my clarification) (40). This statement, along with the rest of Defoe's calls to a "righteous reading" in the preface, only serves to subvert the story that follows it, for it allows a man to wash his hands of a woman, and therefore absolve himself of his responsibility towards her if it's done in the name of atonement, and gives a woman no such privilege.
It's definitely challenging to wrap your mind around exactly what Defoe's purpose(s) is in this novel. There seem to be different and sometimes competing narratives at play here and Defoe's desire to entertain complicates his stated intention of presenting the reader with a truly moral story. Then,as you point out, there's the problem of a man telling a woman's story (i.e. is it realistic that she gave away her children so easily?).
ReplyDeleteOne way I like to look at novels is by examining the fictional world vs the narrative world. The fictional world is just the world of the novel--just what the characters know and experience. The narrative world is what happens between the author and his/her reader as the story unfolds. For example, Moll herself doesn't seem to be troubled by the number of marriages she's had, but Defoe is clearly trying to communicate a message to the reader about marriage and marriage laws in his time. For this novel, the two worlds don't suffice. There's also this unintentional/ironic world that we've been talking about in class. It's a challenge to tease out the different worlds and make sense of them.