Authorized by one born,
Out of time-
Wit in reason and width out rhyme!
-Francis Tobienne, Jr.
Miss. Clarissa Harlowe To Ms. Moll Flanders
Monday Morning, 6 o’clock (March 23).
I write, my dearest madam, in hopes of advice seasoned by a life such as yours. I have not the time nor the space to relay, in fullest and most foul of measures, what has befallen me. In short, I am pursued Ms. Flanders by a very tangible beast of a man who would rather way-lay both my fortunes and my soul. You may know of him, but pray that you never come to know him. He is a vile, vile sort of man. He is the devil on two legs though his feet were cloven hoofs. They call him a gentleman, but I see nothing of nobility in his manner. He is far from gentle, and to the other extreme-far from a man. I am a creature of virtue and this man, this…beast would have me in any way or form. How does one run from such a person? How does one defend ones honor and virtue?
I am forever your indebted servant and eager pupil for defense/ CLARISSA HARLOWE.
Ms. Moll Flanders To Miss C. Harlowe
Tuesday Night, 11 o’clock (March 24).
Miss Harlowe I was pleased to receive your letter earlier today, however I found myself a bit detained in London-a…business matter of sorts. You have taken the liberty to address me as one having much to teach you, both in season and out of it. I will be glad to share what little of gentlemen I know, and much more on the subject of gentility in men I don’t know.
First, let us address this devil-man you so readily describe in fiery brimstone language. He is a man. How do I know this? Because he pursues you with the very sweat and lust that is privy to their sex. We may be the prey, but we are costly and the power truly lies with us. Remember this!
Second, this devil is clothed in the flesh of human nobility, but exercises devil-like qualities. Recall, that you control the urges from this fellow. Would you have him eating out of your hand? Are you willing to prostitute your body for a virtue that is heightened and established? These questions are meant for your meditation towards a resolution.
When next I receive your response be sure to answer my inquiries, for as such they shall prove your mind. Your well-seasoned and true penitent/ MOLLY
Miss C. Harlowe To M. Flanders
Wednesday, March 25
I could not prepare myself for the shock of your latest letter. I must admit that my pale hue was changed to reflect my sanguine expression from the readings your letter procured. I am both astonished and curious to say the least. I have taken your questions, though quite disturbing, to my palpitating bosom and heart. What follows are my responses to your interrogation.
First, I would have no man eating out of my hand Ms. Flanders. I would desire the pleasure of a man’s company equal to his noble stature who would expect nothing more than my company for his conversation.
Second, many are the suitors who enter the Harlowe walls only to be dismissed for their lack of virtue. The virtue I possess has been given to me by the Almighty in hopes that I, though mortal, would put on immortality and that this corruptible would feign put on incorruptible. What fuels my virtue is my obedience to the Divine. A usurping of this ideal would mean to prostitute my body as well as my soul.
You have raised some questions to me, but I wonder if there are some inquiries of my own you would not disincline to acquiesce some response. I was told you have a brother, quite close and yet far removed from your person. I too have a brother. It seems all men are apt to do their sex justice by simply being and behaving like men. How is it that you were able to remove your brother, an archetype of masculine control, and I can neither remove my own nor the suitors who keep coming to my house to invade my space? Also, how else can I defend myself against such masculine dominance?
Ms. Molly To Miss Harlowe
Thursday, March 26.
You must recall my dear saint and sister of the faith that we are dominated, and yet doted upon. The difference between the two can mean harlotry to the one or control of power to the other. You must decide which one you will be. You cannot save yourself as well as the body and soul of this beast, this devil, this…man.
In reference to your brother and all men in general-you must accept your role of the submissive until you are positioned to strike at the fortunes of these unsuspecting dotards. My brother and I are removed because of complications too pre-determined to recall here, but rest assured that in all his qualities-he too is but a mere man. Never forget that a man can be hung and a devil can be burned.
The space you consider invaded is one that charges interest and exacts usury from an investment of pride not virtue. Your space can never be invaded unless you let it become so. No Clarissa, recall that you are in control and the dominance of masculinity exists but a moment.
[Clarissa reads the last of the letters from Ms. Flanders and senses the need to stop this friendly intercourse of words. She is unhappy with the advice from Moll. Moll senses this, but does not push the matter further. The two end with mutual affection towards each other in support of the feminine ideal]
Clarissa To Moll
Friday, Night, 6 o’clock, March 27.
Ms. Flanders I am writing to express my gratitude of your correspondence with me; I have learned much about the ways the other sex reacts and responds to a life of virtue. I need not continue our previous repartee for it would contain no further relevance to either of us. I assure you the advice, though disturbing and challenging, shall remain in the bond of privacy amongst true penitents.
I am your newly enlightened servant/ CLARISSA HARLOWE
Moll To Clarissa
Saturday, March 28.
Clarissa you are still young and idealize much to virtue, but be forewarned that sustained virtue in itself can be a pride unto the bearer before destruction. I wish you well and that your happiness is tangibly attainable to one so unattainably intangible.
If ever my services are requested I will again answer to the call, your humble tutor and penitent/ MOLLY
[The author chose to leave these letters out of the original manuscript in hopes that readers, after its initial reading, would undoubtedly agree to its omission; the novel does not suffer in spite of its non-inclusion…]
Showing posts with label Moll Flanders. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Moll Flanders. Show all posts
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Moll Flanders: Incest Discovered Viz. Defoe’s Ideal, or The Valuation of Sexualis in the Familiar
Sibling Rivalry: Suitor (He) & Moll
He: You I Love, and you alone.
Moll: And so in love says every one.
He: Virtue alone is an estate.
Moll: But money’s virtue, gold is fate.
He: I scorn your gold, and yet I love.
Moll: I’m poor: let’s see how kind you’ll prove.
He: Be mine, with all your poverty.
Moll: Yet secretly you hope I lie.
He: Let love alone be our debate.
Moll: She loves enough that does not hate.
The valuation of the family ideal cannot be defined outside the context of the ideal marriage; these two themes, family and marriage- intersect (respectively) time and time again in Daniel Defoe’s novel Moll Flanders. Defoe presents an ambivalent heroine who exudes sexualis-much like a room just sprayed with a sweet, yet biting fragrance. Defoe, viz. the plot turn of encountered incest between brother and his protagonist Moll, interjects with a scene of taboo (somewhat sensational) in order to define what the aforementioned ideal is not. The subject of incest, that intercourse between persons so closely related that forbids their marriage viz. the natural law, is the medium Defoe utilizes to illuminate the portrayal of Moll’s sexuality. A closer analysis of Moll’s incestual romp yields an interwoven theme of institutionalized authority throughout the novel where conventional morality is pitted against instinctive reaction; the two co-exist and exchange. It is by incorporating this significant thread that the tapestry of the ideal family is positioned into, according to Ellen Pollak, “the kinship’s persistent force.” To ignore this position is to ill-define these ideals and one could argue-to forego Defoe’s intended meaning of sexuality within his British novel.
If ignorance were bliss, then Moll Flanders would have played her wild card well into a straight flush, however our heroine finds herself trumped in the worse way. Moll is a woman of the criminal mind receiving training from like-minded individuals, and yet she is a woman in constant search of financial and marital felicity-to further her gains. She gains assistance from the captain’s lady, a woman assuming the role of friend and mother, in finding a suitable companion and upon acquiescing, submits to her direction:
“I told her as I had reason to do, that I would give myself wholly to her directions, and that I would have neither tongue to speak, or feet to step, in that affair, but as she should direct me.” It is because of this “other” direction that it can be argued Moll finds herself in the predicament of marrying her brother in the first place. Defoe, in exposing Moll’s character, displays her to have no control of speech (communication) or ability to maneuver through such an affair. Here, the verbal choice on “affair” plays into a pun, or word-play and foreshadows the woes of incest and Moll’s sexuality. Furthermore, upon exposing her naked psyche she confesses “how doubly criminal it was to deceive such a man”. The crime is “doubled” because it concerns an attack against lawful marriage and its deception upon institutional authority. Her deception leads to a crisis in defining the family ideal while exposing the problems of conventional morality.
The problems of conventional morality find their true root in the objections of instinctive reactions from Moll, and as such support justification of a more instinctive, natural means. For Moll, the news, from her mother-in-law, “to her horror” was enough to awaken shock and repulsion. This repulsion however was not a reaction to sin or transgression against conventional morality, but an instinctive outcry to an ill-defined ideal or institution. Moll is no stranger to crime. In fact, she displays typical avarice as motive towards her crimes of thievery and whoredom. However, she reacts to her condition and concludes that her incest “had been no crime to have lain with my husband, since to his being my relation, I had known nothing.” Moreover, this proof of her justification and lack of penitence can be found where “she did not tell anyone of her horrible discovery, but was terribly oppressed by it”, to reveal more of her troubled mind. Once more, Moll describes herself to be “afraid, that if she told, she would be divorced without being believed, and left helpless far from her native land. Thus she lived for three years.” Defoe exposes the psyche of his frail, pseudo-eponymous protagonist to fear the act of divorcement-an attack against institutionalized and sanctified marriage, and being sent to the mad-house in Virginia away from the familiar surroundings of England. This is the only place in the novel by which Moll, through many encounters with men and wedded unions, finds herself afraid of separation. The topic is loneliness apart from the familiar-England; the subject is Moll. Again, this separation is one against marital togetherness. This is part of the ideal. Though the two are siblings, Moll is aware of the importance of separation, despite continued “whoredom and incest” for three more years, and in an emotive, suppressed state-desires direction through her distressed condition. However, this time the counsel is from her mother whose opinion it was, “that I [Moll] should bury the whole thing entirely, and continue to live with him as my husband, till some other event should make the discovery of it more convenient.” This maternal opinion proves a direct blow to conventional morality and supports the instinctive reaction of Moll’s viewpoint as one that contradicts such tolerance:
“But then it was this misfortune too, that my mother’s opinion and mine were quite different from one another, and indeed inconsistent with one another”.
Defoe presents two distinct viewpoints upon the subject of incest in order to portray the notion that the family ideal supports and is in need of clear institutional authority. Why? Left up to the mother Moll would live a life where “in the mean time she would endeavor to reconcile us together again, and restore our mutual comfort and family peace […] and so let the whole matter remain secret as close as death…” This death, argues Defoe, juxtaposes the ideal of family and peace in lieu of secrecy and lying; there is usurpation from the institutionalized familiar in exchange for the blurring of the ideal. These two subsets are not meant to co-exist, but they do because of the dichotomized accents of sex and love, or incest and family found throughout the novel. The subject of the blurred ideal is clarified in the instinctive reactions of Defoe’s protagonist, and leads to a better understanding and support of the institution of family maintenance.
Moll, upon further conversations with her mother, finally admits to telling her brother everything in spite of maintaining family ruin. This divulgement is necessary towards a regaining of stability in Moll’s life and in a bigger manner towards the reconciliation between conventional morality and instinctive natural reaction.
The triangular web of response to the subject of incest illuminates each character’s method of thought and assists to define the novel’s over-arching themes of morality, family, and marriage. The mother wants to cover up the scandal, the husband/brother wants to remove the scandal by killing himself, and Moll senses departure from the scandal altogether as the best option; all three characters carefully construct their biased interpretations of the aforementioned themes. The subject of incest is seen as wrong, and although this point is not in question-why this is so, is! The subject of the family, its legacy or ideal, and the staying-power of marriage are inter-locked and prove resilient in defending institutional authority. The subject of morality, conventional and naturally instinctive, is polar opposites-yet serves the other for the common goal of defining Moll’s sexuality. Again, these three characters agree as one under the banner of family (mother to her children), and yet none can co-exist to bring about its fruition-for they are all at odds and caught in the complexity of incest. This disparity assists to promote, indirectly, what the ideals should be and affirm its authority on what it should not be.
The nature of family and the marital ideal is blurred by the complexity of incest. This act of inadvertent taboo plunges the distinction and definition of the institution into both crisis and chaos. The quality of its redefinition is found in Moll’s sexuality, ignorance, and defiance to conventional morality by utilizing that instinct which is most natural to her. She is not a perfect protagonist, epitomizing morality in its highest regard, but proves to be a far better example when faced with such a crime against the familiar and its institutions. Defoe provides a willing host to promote his views on human sexuality in lieu of the sensationalism of incest. This is not added into the novel to generate sales only, but to instruct and touch upon the chords of morality, the ideals of marriage and family life and maintenance, and exposure and threats towards defining institutional authority.
Daniel Defoe presents a female protagonist capable of great natural, moral task in light of inadvertent scandal- but with shortcomings in which the family unit suffers. Though this family suffers it is a true testament of what should not be. Beyond the discovery of such vice- proves to identify and par Moll in support of the institutional authority of family. The subject of Moll’s sexuality argues for the establishment of instinctive and conventional morality threaded towards “a persistent force”, namely that of kinship ties and the instinct exchange. It is because of this exchange, not in spite of it, that Defoe presents his readers with a view upon, and argues- for his intended meaning of mollified, sexuality.
He: You I Love, and you alone.
Moll: And so in love says every one.
He: Virtue alone is an estate.
Moll: But money’s virtue, gold is fate.
He: I scorn your gold, and yet I love.
Moll: I’m poor: let’s see how kind you’ll prove.
He: Be mine, with all your poverty.
Moll: Yet secretly you hope I lie.
He: Let love alone be our debate.
Moll: She loves enough that does not hate.
The valuation of the family ideal cannot be defined outside the context of the ideal marriage; these two themes, family and marriage- intersect (respectively) time and time again in Daniel Defoe’s novel Moll Flanders. Defoe presents an ambivalent heroine who exudes sexualis-much like a room just sprayed with a sweet, yet biting fragrance. Defoe, viz. the plot turn of encountered incest between brother and his protagonist Moll, interjects with a scene of taboo (somewhat sensational) in order to define what the aforementioned ideal is not. The subject of incest, that intercourse between persons so closely related that forbids their marriage viz. the natural law, is the medium Defoe utilizes to illuminate the portrayal of Moll’s sexuality. A closer analysis of Moll’s incestual romp yields an interwoven theme of institutionalized authority throughout the novel where conventional morality is pitted against instinctive reaction; the two co-exist and exchange. It is by incorporating this significant thread that the tapestry of the ideal family is positioned into, according to Ellen Pollak, “the kinship’s persistent force.” To ignore this position is to ill-define these ideals and one could argue-to forego Defoe’s intended meaning of sexuality within his British novel.
If ignorance were bliss, then Moll Flanders would have played her wild card well into a straight flush, however our heroine finds herself trumped in the worse way. Moll is a woman of the criminal mind receiving training from like-minded individuals, and yet she is a woman in constant search of financial and marital felicity-to further her gains. She gains assistance from the captain’s lady, a woman assuming the role of friend and mother, in finding a suitable companion and upon acquiescing, submits to her direction:
“I told her as I had reason to do, that I would give myself wholly to her directions, and that I would have neither tongue to speak, or feet to step, in that affair, but as she should direct me.” It is because of this “other” direction that it can be argued Moll finds herself in the predicament of marrying her brother in the first place. Defoe, in exposing Moll’s character, displays her to have no control of speech (communication) or ability to maneuver through such an affair. Here, the verbal choice on “affair” plays into a pun, or word-play and foreshadows the woes of incest and Moll’s sexuality. Furthermore, upon exposing her naked psyche she confesses “how doubly criminal it was to deceive such a man”. The crime is “doubled” because it concerns an attack against lawful marriage and its deception upon institutional authority. Her deception leads to a crisis in defining the family ideal while exposing the problems of conventional morality.
The problems of conventional morality find their true root in the objections of instinctive reactions from Moll, and as such support justification of a more instinctive, natural means. For Moll, the news, from her mother-in-law, “to her horror” was enough to awaken shock and repulsion. This repulsion however was not a reaction to sin or transgression against conventional morality, but an instinctive outcry to an ill-defined ideal or institution. Moll is no stranger to crime. In fact, she displays typical avarice as motive towards her crimes of thievery and whoredom. However, she reacts to her condition and concludes that her incest “had been no crime to have lain with my husband, since to his being my relation, I had known nothing.” Moreover, this proof of her justification and lack of penitence can be found where “she did not tell anyone of her horrible discovery, but was terribly oppressed by it”, to reveal more of her troubled mind. Once more, Moll describes herself to be “afraid, that if she told, she would be divorced without being believed, and left helpless far from her native land. Thus she lived for three years.” Defoe exposes the psyche of his frail, pseudo-eponymous protagonist to fear the act of divorcement-an attack against institutionalized and sanctified marriage, and being sent to the mad-house in Virginia away from the familiar surroundings of England. This is the only place in the novel by which Moll, through many encounters with men and wedded unions, finds herself afraid of separation. The topic is loneliness apart from the familiar-England; the subject is Moll. Again, this separation is one against marital togetherness. This is part of the ideal. Though the two are siblings, Moll is aware of the importance of separation, despite continued “whoredom and incest” for three more years, and in an emotive, suppressed state-desires direction through her distressed condition. However, this time the counsel is from her mother whose opinion it was, “that I [Moll] should bury the whole thing entirely, and continue to live with him as my husband, till some other event should make the discovery of it more convenient.” This maternal opinion proves a direct blow to conventional morality and supports the instinctive reaction of Moll’s viewpoint as one that contradicts such tolerance:
“But then it was this misfortune too, that my mother’s opinion and mine were quite different from one another, and indeed inconsistent with one another”.
Defoe presents two distinct viewpoints upon the subject of incest in order to portray the notion that the family ideal supports and is in need of clear institutional authority. Why? Left up to the mother Moll would live a life where “in the mean time she would endeavor to reconcile us together again, and restore our mutual comfort and family peace […] and so let the whole matter remain secret as close as death…” This death, argues Defoe, juxtaposes the ideal of family and peace in lieu of secrecy and lying; there is usurpation from the institutionalized familiar in exchange for the blurring of the ideal. These two subsets are not meant to co-exist, but they do because of the dichotomized accents of sex and love, or incest and family found throughout the novel. The subject of the blurred ideal is clarified in the instinctive reactions of Defoe’s protagonist, and leads to a better understanding and support of the institution of family maintenance.
Moll, upon further conversations with her mother, finally admits to telling her brother everything in spite of maintaining family ruin. This divulgement is necessary towards a regaining of stability in Moll’s life and in a bigger manner towards the reconciliation between conventional morality and instinctive natural reaction.
The triangular web of response to the subject of incest illuminates each character’s method of thought and assists to define the novel’s over-arching themes of morality, family, and marriage. The mother wants to cover up the scandal, the husband/brother wants to remove the scandal by killing himself, and Moll senses departure from the scandal altogether as the best option; all three characters carefully construct their biased interpretations of the aforementioned themes. The subject of incest is seen as wrong, and although this point is not in question-why this is so, is! The subject of the family, its legacy or ideal, and the staying-power of marriage are inter-locked and prove resilient in defending institutional authority. The subject of morality, conventional and naturally instinctive, is polar opposites-yet serves the other for the common goal of defining Moll’s sexuality. Again, these three characters agree as one under the banner of family (mother to her children), and yet none can co-exist to bring about its fruition-for they are all at odds and caught in the complexity of incest. This disparity assists to promote, indirectly, what the ideals should be and affirm its authority on what it should not be.
The nature of family and the marital ideal is blurred by the complexity of incest. This act of inadvertent taboo plunges the distinction and definition of the institution into both crisis and chaos. The quality of its redefinition is found in Moll’s sexuality, ignorance, and defiance to conventional morality by utilizing that instinct which is most natural to her. She is not a perfect protagonist, epitomizing morality in its highest regard, but proves to be a far better example when faced with such a crime against the familiar and its institutions. Defoe provides a willing host to promote his views on human sexuality in lieu of the sensationalism of incest. This is not added into the novel to generate sales only, but to instruct and touch upon the chords of morality, the ideals of marriage and family life and maintenance, and exposure and threats towards defining institutional authority.
Daniel Defoe presents a female protagonist capable of great natural, moral task in light of inadvertent scandal- but with shortcomings in which the family unit suffers. Though this family suffers it is a true testament of what should not be. Beyond the discovery of such vice- proves to identify and par Moll in support of the institutional authority of family. The subject of Moll’s sexuality argues for the establishment of instinctive and conventional morality threaded towards “a persistent force”, namely that of kinship ties and the instinct exchange. It is because of this exchange, not in spite of it, that Defoe presents his readers with a view upon, and argues- for his intended meaning of mollified, sexuality.
Mollifying Morality in Man
Daniel Defoe presents the theme of morality viz. the use of adventure, comedy, and grave sincerity in his novel Moll Flanders. The topic is supported by the obligation of choice(s) he places his protagonist into throughout the novel. A closer reading of Defoe’s Moll Flanders also presents a blame shifting on that original creature, namely man- whereby:
A Woman’s ne’er ruin’d but she can
Revenge herself on her undoer, Man.
What follows is a closer look at the subject of morality with a focus on the state of man, whereby the term man is gender universal, not gender specific; hence, the inclusion of both sexes lends credibility to the novel not in spite of their separate titration.
Defoe was an educated man well aware of the philosophers of his time. One such noted philosopher was John Locke. In Moll Flanders Defoe presents a story, if not a tale, of morality whereby a woman’s attempt at rising above her plight and whorish slander results in her depravity. Locke observed, in his Of the State of Nature, that man exists in a “state of freedom to order their actions and dispose of their possessions and persons as they think fit…without asking leave or depending upon the will of any other man”. Defoe presents, to a degree, his protagonist in this light. However, Molly Flanders is a character bent on successive vices and does depend on the male figure, like a predator nibbling on its prey, all the while wishing it back to health. The adventures and several copulating events in her life place her readily with the tag name of whore, but she is no murderer. Is she then with morals or is she without? Locke further expounds upon the state of man by stating “though this be a state of liberty, yet it is not a state of license”. Molly Flanders steals gold necklaces from young children, in dark alley ways- while sending the child back to its mother with wiser judgment. Defoe presents his protagonist with justified transgressions that temper on morality, but with each added vice can be viewed as repugnant. How? The state of morality is constantly broken, then “repaired” throughout the novel at the expense of the male figurehead.
Molly Flanders exists in a circumlocutory battle consisting of pro morality and quasi morality. Defoe and Locke agree, to an extent, on the subject of morality, the former in its exploitation and the latter in its limitation. This tension is what sets the novel Moll Flanders into the high fantastical state of mollifying morality in man viz. adventure, comedy, and grave sincerity.
A Woman’s ne’er ruin’d but she can
Revenge herself on her undoer, Man.
What follows is a closer look at the subject of morality with a focus on the state of man, whereby the term man is gender universal, not gender specific; hence, the inclusion of both sexes lends credibility to the novel not in spite of their separate titration.
Defoe was an educated man well aware of the philosophers of his time. One such noted philosopher was John Locke. In Moll Flanders Defoe presents a story, if not a tale, of morality whereby a woman’s attempt at rising above her plight and whorish slander results in her depravity. Locke observed, in his Of the State of Nature, that man exists in a “state of freedom to order their actions and dispose of their possessions and persons as they think fit…without asking leave or depending upon the will of any other man”. Defoe presents, to a degree, his protagonist in this light. However, Molly Flanders is a character bent on successive vices and does depend on the male figure, like a predator nibbling on its prey, all the while wishing it back to health. The adventures and several copulating events in her life place her readily with the tag name of whore, but she is no murderer. Is she then with morals or is she without? Locke further expounds upon the state of man by stating “though this be a state of liberty, yet it is not a state of license”. Molly Flanders steals gold necklaces from young children, in dark alley ways- while sending the child back to its mother with wiser judgment. Defoe presents his protagonist with justified transgressions that temper on morality, but with each added vice can be viewed as repugnant. How? The state of morality is constantly broken, then “repaired” throughout the novel at the expense of the male figurehead.
Molly Flanders exists in a circumlocutory battle consisting of pro morality and quasi morality. Defoe and Locke agree, to an extent, on the subject of morality, the former in its exploitation and the latter in its limitation. This tension is what sets the novel Moll Flanders into the high fantastical state of mollifying morality in man viz. adventure, comedy, and grave sincerity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.jpg)
