The Strange Naming Conventions of M--- F-------

One of the things that bugs me about Moll Flanders is who she does and doesn't give a full name to. Significant individuals in her life, such as Jemy or Humphrey, get actual names, which makes sense given that they are, as I said, significant individuals to her. Jemy was her last husband, and someone who understands her a fundamental level (he comes from her world and speaks her language, as it were). Humphrey was her son who cared for her in her waning years, and was the first biological family member she truly accepted into her life.
But then we have the brothers she grew up with: Robin and the Elder Brother. She was madly in love with the Elder Brother. He was her first love and she had all her hopes and dreams set on him. And yet somehow he is just "the Elder Brother". Then we have Robin, a young man who loved her dearly, and towards whom she felt no great affection whatsoever, and ultimately held no great implications to her life and development. But he gets to have an actual name assigned to him.
But given the defictionalization of narratives in the time period, it's possible that maybe it was done to protect the reputations of the extant. Robin died, thus didn't need his name protected, so he could get his name. But the old nurse who took Moll in as a young girl is also dead, but gets at best an inconsistent naming convention. This was the woman tantamount to Moll's mother and Moll couldn't even be bothered to give her a real name.
The most likely reason I can find for why Moll is so disjointed in nomenclature stems from the fact that she is in her hinter years and just doesn't remember their names anymore. And from a real world perspective, it's possible with the onset of dementia or Alzheimer's, but from a craft sense, that's such a boring reason for Defoe to intentionally create an ambiguity of reference in the narration.

The Lucky Ones

Much has been said about Moll’s blatant disregard for her children, yet little has been mentioned about Moll’s childhood.  She herself was abandoned as a child, and is a tad resentful for it (especially, I’m sure, knowing her brother did not share the same fate).  Moll bemoans those like her mother, “I wish all those Women who consent to the disposing their Children out of the way, as it is call’d for Decency sake, would consider that ‘tis only a contriv’d Method for [murder]; that is to say, a killing their children with safety” (145).  Granted, her mother had more pressing matters than “decency,” but the problem still remains.  “We are born into the World helpless and uncapable,” in need of “Care and Skill” which are “plac’d by Nature in the Hearts of Mothers” for the sake of the child’s survival (145).  To abandon a child, even to a good home, is to kill it by depriving it of a mother’s care.

Moll was a child who, once abandoned, fell through the cracks of society and grew into a life of debauchery and thievery; not to mention abandoning several children which may follow in her footsteps, as Moll is most certainly following in her mothers.  This is a point I believe Defoe wants to raise, as it were, by absence.  Moll’s children are given up, assumed safe, and forgotten.  Moll forgets, society forgets, and so does the reader.  The result of one child dropped by the system, then, is a multitude of future degenerate generations.

This is reflected in Moll’s gradual repetition of her mother’s mistakes, as mentioned before.  While visiting some incarcerated friends of the trade, she is faced with an existential crisis: “but [Newgate] gave me so much Horror, reflecting that it was the place of my unhappy Birth, and of my Mother’s Misfortunes, that I could not bear it” (170).  One can also note that her mother, sitting pretty in Virginia, has achieved the goal Moll herself will one day reach: financial wealth, security, and the comfort of looking back on life as an impartial narrator.  

However, this leaves a conflicted impression: will those children who grow without their mother’s love, rely on sin to get by, and live on the other side of the law thrive because of their experience?   Or are Moll and her mother just the lucky ones?

(Better late than never, though my internet is still a problem)

Repentant or Irrelevant?

The aspect of Moll Flanders that interests me the most is the question of whether or not the narration is reliable, and specifically how this relates to her supposedly-repentant attitude at the end.

What makes analysis of this difficult is that we are told up-front that Moll's telling of the story is, at the very least, incomplete—supposedly for the sake of modesty. However, if this is indeed the story of a notorious liar telling her perspective on the tale, how are we to judge its accuracy?

Furthermore, why would Moll choose to relate her story to us? So as to stand as a cautionary tale for others? Perhaps, but in that case it should contain more emphasis on moral consequences. It seems that the only point of the narrative is to make Moll seem more interesting. Since Moll herself is telling the story, it seems that her reason for relating this tale to us is for the sake of her own ego. Why would a truly repentant person still take pride in her past sins? She wouldn't because she isn't.

Daniel Defoe, "Compassion on Famishing Thieves" (1722)

1. There are Extremities which the Nature of Man cannot support, and which no Virtue, no Principle, will be a Protection against.

2. That Men driven to such desperate Extremities deserve our Compassion; both National and Personal Compassion, according to Solomon; Men do not despise a Thief who stealeth to satisfy his Hunger. 

Family Distresses, and personal Distresses, such as Hunger and Want, are even to human Nature insupportable; great Spirits particularly cannot stoop to the Approaches of them, they overcome at a Distance, and drive Men to Desperation, the Effects of which we see terrible Examples of in Self-Murthers, and in the Murthers of the poor miserable Objects, for whom they are so anxious. I remember a poor Man that murder’d his Wife and two little Children, purely because he could not see them starve; and he then murder’d himself, mov’d to the same, by the Fury and Rage that agitated his Mind to the first bloody Action.

But I descend from those Excesses, which, I may be allow’d to say, do not attend People, till after they are driven out of themselves; I name them for the sake of the Inference which follows: If Men, by the force of these Distresses, are thus brought to destroy themselves, and their dearest Relations, how much more may they be driven to the trespassing on their Friends, or on the Persons they deal with?

How natural is it for us to pity poor Thieves who bring themselves to the Gallows for Trifles, when we find that Poverty and the Misery of their Families have driven them to those Exigencies? Certainly, not Christianity only, but even Humanity, extorts that Pity from us, if we consider what we should do, if we were driven to those Exigencies ourselves; for, ‘tis to be doubted, it might be said of us all, that if God should give us Poverty, we should Steal; that is to say, -- for I must suggest the Extremity, -- that there would be some Difficulty to find an honest Man in the World, who would not Steal before he would Starve. Let the Man who can say otherwise of himself, begin to cast Stones.

William Hogarth, "Harlot's Progress" (1732)

Transportation Act of 1718

AN ACT FOR THE FURTHER PREVENTING ROBBERY, BURGLARY, AND OTHER FELONIES, AND FOR THE MORE EFFECTUAL TRANSPORTATION OF FELONS, AND UNLAWFUL EXPORTERS OF WOOL; AND FOR DECLARING THE LAW UPON SOME POINTS RELATING TO PIRATES.

Whereas it is found by experience, that the punishments inflicted by the Laws now in force against the offences of robbery, larceny and other felonius taking and stealing of money and goods, have not proved effectual to deter wicked and evil-disposed persons from being guilty of the said crimes;

And whereas many offenders to whom Royal mercy hath been extended, upon condition of transporting themselves to the West-Indies, have often neglected to perform the said condition, but returned to their former wickedness, and have been at least for new crimes brought to a shameful and ignominious death;

And whereas in many of his Majesty’s colonies and plantations in America, there is great want of servants, who by their labour and industry might be the means of improving and making the said colonies and plantations more useful to this Nation:

BE IT ENACTED BY THE KING'S MOST EXCELLENT MAJESTY, BY AND WITH THE ADVICE AND CONSENT OF THE LORDS SPIRITUAL AND TEMPORAL, AND THE COMMONS, IN THIS PRESENT PARLIAMENT ASSEMBLED, AND BY THE AUTHORITY OF THE SAME,

That where any person or persons have been convicted of any offence within the benefit of clergy, before the 20th day of January, 1717, and are liable to be whipped or burnt in the hand, or have been ordered to any workhouse, and who shall be therein on the said 20th day of January;

As also where any person or persons shall be hereafter convicted of grand or petit larceny, or any felonious stealing or taking of money or goods and chattels, either from the person or the house of any other, or in any other manner, and who by the law shall be entitled to the benefit of clergy, and liable only to the penalties of burning in the hand or whipping, (except persons convicted for receiving or buying stolen goods, knowing them to be stolen) it shall and may be lawful for the Court before whom they were convicted) or any court held at the same place with the like authority, if they think fit, instead, of ordering any such offenders to be burnt in the hand or whipped, to order and direct, that such offenders, as also such offenders in any workhouse as aforesaid, shall be sent as soon as conveniently may be, to some of his Majesty's colonies and plantations in America for the space of 7 years;

And that court before whom they were convicted, or any subsequent court held at the same place, with like authority as the former, shall have power to convey, transfer and make over such offenders by order of court, to the use of any person or persons who shall contract for the performance of such transportation, to him, or them, and his and their assigns, for such term of 7 Years;

And where any persons have been convicted, or do now stand attainted of any offences whatsoever for which death by law ought to be inflicted, or where any offenders shall hereafter be convicted of any crimes whatsoever, for which they are by law to be excluded the benefit of clergy, and his Majesty, his heirs or successors shall be graciously pleased to extend Royal mercy to any such offenders, upon the condition of transportation to any part of America, and such intention of mercy be signified by one of his Majesty's principal Secretaries of State, it shall and may be lawful to and for any court having proper authority to allow such offenders the benefit of a pardon under the Great Seal, and to order and direct the like transfer and conveyance to any person or persons (who will contract for the performance of such transportation) and to his and their assigns of any such before-mentioned offenders, as also of any person or persons convicted of receiving or buying stolen goods, knowing them to be stolen, for the term of 14 years, in case such condition of transportation be general, or else for such other term or terms as shall be made part of such condition, if any particular time be specified by his Majesty, his heirs and successors, as aforesaid;

And such person or persons so contracting, as aforesaid, his or their assigns, by virtue of such order of transfer, as aforesaid shall have a property and interest in the service of such offender for such terms of years.

Identity Crisis

Mrs. Moll seems to be having a recurring crisis of identity, with each of her dramas outlined under a new moniker (either gained by gossip or marriage).  She has, at various points so far, been known as, "the little gentlewoman," "Mrs. Betty," "the pretty widow," and "Mrs. Flanders;" and these do not include the names gained by the multiple marriages.  Each of these names have bought with it a new hope of an improved lot and opportunities, only to entertain some new drama and dropped for another pseudonym.

One could argue this is just the way of criminals, or a exercise to maintain anonymity within the autobiographical format.  Criminals are often rather proud of their accomplishments, however, and using aliases or not, are known for their deeds.  Still, I think Moll Flanders is rather attached to her identity (the one currently used, at least), and is anonymous only for personal safety.  She wants so badly to become this woman, secure in estate and marriage enough to be a pretty and sensible woman; and this woman must have a name she just has not found yet.  If this goal cannot be achieved as Mrs. Betty, perhaps the pretty widow will have better luck.  Our Moll admits, "I resolv'd therefore, as to the State of my prsent Circumstances; that it was absolutely Necessary to change my Station," and how else to do this but, "make a new Appearance in some other Place where I was not known, and even to pass by another Name" (64).

"Flanders" has been glued to her by the title of our novel and by infamy within Newgate.  Indeed it seems her most "wicked" acts have been committed in that name (marrying her brother, for one, albeit unintentional).  Yet she lives to become rich and a penitent, quite removed from the the girl so easily fooled by the devil's temptations; and it is this name, this final achievement of status and security, that she wishes to protect with anonymity.  Sure, the pending cases at the Bailey might be a threat for her discovery, but she risks losing the life and identity she has suffered so long to know.  "Flanders" is used up, a crook, and left to squander in her wickedness, while the new Moll can rest happily in the final name she has established.

Moll Flanders And The Terrible Tale of Why Money Isn't Everything And First World Problems Aren't Funny

So we discussed in class last time (at time of writing this) about whether or not Ms. Flanders got a bad break during the whole Colchester incident, where we wagered that 605 guineas for your dignity and self respect was a pretty good shake. Upon further reflection, I'm not really sure how much I really agree with that though, her $3 million in modern day money notwithstanding.

Moll came from a history of money, in a way. Her whole childhood, she did work and, pleased the gentry, and was financially rewarded. Though she did not come from money herself, she was a regular entrepenuer, and quite a lucrative one at that. While the value of the money the Elder Brother awarded her for sexual loyalty was by no means a small amount, it was just another point in a long pattern. Coupled with the fact that she also has a history of rewarding her gains to others, thus we can plainly see money is not a primary motivator for her.

Then we have the period ideal of a woman, specifically one of her greatest attributes: chastity. Moll fancied herself a virtuous woman. She wants to be a good person, and lead a good life, and not get into any trouble or cause any mischief. She has a very strong moral compass, and her doing the lateral fandango with the Elder Brother was motivated not by lust but by a consummation of virtuous love under the assumption of a marriage contract. So, when the tremendous berk decides he wants nothing more to do with her, she falls into a terrible sadness. Her financial remuneration never even enters her head. All she cares about is that this means she is no longer a good woman. It does worse than damage her reputation: it damages her self-respect, and her idea of who she is as a person. If she cannot marry Sir Berksalot, then she is a loose woman of low morals, even though her whole life she had considered herself to be of strong moral fibre and unshakeable purity. But she isn't. This is the first time in her life something bad has happened in which she was complicit.

And really, is any amount of money worth your own dignity?