Annotated Bibliography Assignment

Moll Flanders' Governess Author(s): Kenneth L. Moler and Lois A. Chaber Source: PMLA, Vol. 98, No. 2 (Mar., 1983), pp. 252-253 Published by: Modern Language Association Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/462049 Accessed: 08-03-2019 01:18 UTC

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide

range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and

facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at

https://about.jstor.org/terms

Modern Language Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to PMLA

This content downloaded from 168.28.240.65 on Fri, 08 Mar 2019 01:18:21 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Forum

Members of the Association are invited to submit letters, typed and double-spaced, commenting on articles pub- lished in PMLA or on matters of general scholarly or critical interest. Footnotes are discouraged, and letters of more than one thousand words will not be considered. Decision to publish and the right to edit are reserved to the Edi- tor, and the authors of articles discussed will be invited to reply.

Moll Flanders' Governess Reply:

To the Editor:

I would like to correct some errors of fact in Lois A. Chaber's "Matriarchal Mirror: Women and

Capital in Moll Flanders" (PMLA 97[1982]:212- 26). Chaber cites as words and phrases applied to the character known as Moll's governess expres- sions that are actually used in connection with a subordinate figure: the female pickpocket from whom Moll learns the fine points of her trade. Chaber writes:

Even more genuinely embodying Defoe's ambivalence than Moll's inner voices . . . is the key figure in Moll's new education, the woman she repeatedly calls her "schoolmistress" (pp. 174, 175) and takes as her men- tor: "no woman ever arriv'd to the perfection of that art [stealing watches] like her" (p. 175). The governess represents the professionalization of crime; Defoe de- liberately dissociates her from Moll's initial temptation into "wrongdoing" (in contrast to Roxana's Amy), and she reenters Moll's life only when Moll, realizing that one needs "a market for [one's] goods" (p. 171) to "turn them into money" (p. 176), acknowledges the importance of exchange value. Moll then undergoes a serious vocational training, observing the older woman at work "just as a deputy attends a midwife without any pay" (p. 175). Moll has truly left the charmed domestic circle for the London cycle of distribution only when she walks into the establishment of this female Peachum. (220-21)

The "schoolmistress" to whom Moll refers is not the governess or a "female Peachum" but her associate

the professional pickpocket. It is the pickpocket whose "art" is praised in the second citation. And it is this woman whose on-the-job instruction Moll attends "just as a deputy attends a midwife without any pay." Chaber's errors suggest that the "govern- ess" is herself a pickpocket; in fact, of course, she is an exploiter of thieves-a capitalist, to borrow Chaber's terminology, in the thieving industry.

KENNETH L. MOLER

University of Nebraska, Lincoln

Kenneth Moler has correctly identified my error of bestowing on the governess that professional admiration of Moll's which actually belongs to her fellow thief. I duly thank him and apologize to my readers. By citing my entire paragraph, however, Moler implies that this error invalidates all that I state therein, and I do not believe it does.

First of all, there are statements within the para- graph that extend beyond Moll's pickpocket tech- nique to the larger issue of her economic education. My comments that the governess teaches Moll the importance of exchange value, creates a market for the products of her "industry," and enables her to enter the commercial arena still stand because they are related to the governess' role as pawnbroker and fence. Indeed, I by no means ignore the gov- erness' status as "capitalist"; by calling her a "fe- male Peachum" I meant to invoke precisely that exploitative function, since the parallels between the underworld organizer and the business-capitalist class are clear in Gay's drama. Of course, my main discussion of the governess as exploiter of labor comes later, on page 221 of the article.

Second, it would be unfair to waive the governess' key role in Moll's criminal education just because Moll actually receives her first technical lessons from this "subordinate figure" (an Artful Dodger to the governess' Fagin). In modern business jargon, the governess is the supervisor of Moll's "training program." Moll emphasizes the governess' super- visory capacity by twice mentioning that the gover- ness "helped [her]" to this instructor (174-75). Later on, in fact, she directly attributes her educa- tion as a thief to the governess' efforts, if not as demonstrator then as director-though the gov- erness, we should note, has been an expert pick- pocket herself ("born a pick-pocket, and . . . had run thro' all the several degrees of that art . . ." [185]). Referring to the governess (no error here) she asserts: "[I]t was to this wicked creature that I

ow'd all the dexterity I arriv'd to in which there were few that ever went beyond me . . ." (185); and Moll further elaborates: "I mention thus much

252

This content downloaded from 168.28.240.65 on Fri, 08 Mar 2019 01:18:21 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Forum Forum

of the history of this woman here, the better to account for the concern she had in the wicked life

I was now leading; into all the particulars of which she led me, as it were, by the hand, and gave me such directions, and I so well follow'd them, that I grew the greatest artist of my time .. ." (186). Although my previously chosen example was un- fortunate, I genuinely believe that, the other woman's contribution notwithstanding, Moll ulti- mately wants us to regard the governess as her criminal mentor.

This claim is reinforced by the elaborate paral- lels within the novel between the "arts" of the gov- erness' former midwifery and of Moll's thievery that Robert A. Erickson ingeniously details in "Moll's Fate: 'Mother Midnight' and Moll Flanders" (Studies in Philology 76[1979]:85-94). While not condoning my error of fact, I can nevertheless point with ironic chagrin to the misleading resemblance between Moll's statement about her subordinate "schoolmistress"-"no woman ever arriv'd to the perfection of that art like her"-and her earlier comment about the governess' midwifery-"My governess did her part . . . with the greatest dex- terity imaginable, and far beyond all that ever I had any experience of before" (148)-as well as to Moll's suggestive allusion to the governess in com- paring her apprenticeship to the fellow thief with an apprenticeship to a midwife (175). In sum, I believe we must still regard the governess as a role model for Moll's professionalization and for her proud artistry.

Lois A. CHABER

University of Qatar

Chaucer's Pardoner

To the Editor:

Although I enjoyed Melvin Storm's analysis of Chaucer's Pardoner ("The Pardoner's Invitation: Quaestor's Bag or Becket's Shrine?" PMLA 97 [1982]:810-18), my imagination balks at the idea of the Pardoner as a practical threat or an obstacle to the continuance of the pilgrimage, "a kind of walking shrine" or surrogate Saint Thomas whose powers could satisfy the desires of the pilgrims without requiring them to travel on. This is indeed the jesting assumption of the Pardoner in The Playe Called the Foure PP., who openly claims:

of the history of this woman here, the better to account for the concern she had in the wicked life

I was now leading; into all the particulars of which she led me, as it were, by the hand, and gave me such directions, and I so well follow'd them, that I grew the greatest artist of my time .. ." (186). Although my previously chosen example was un- fortunate, I genuinely believe that, the other woman's contribution notwithstanding, Moll ulti- mately wants us to regard the governess as her criminal mentor.

This claim is reinforced by the elaborate paral- lels within the novel between the "arts" of the gov- erness' former midwifery and of Moll's thievery that Robert A. Erickson ingeniously details in "Moll's Fate: 'Mother Midnight' and Moll Flanders" (Studies in Philology 76[1979]:85-94). While not condoning my error of fact, I can nevertheless point with ironic chagrin to the misleading resemblance between Moll's statement about her subordinate "schoolmistress"-"no woman ever arriv'd to the perfection of that art like her"-and her earlier comment about the governess' midwifery-"My governess did her part . . . with the greatest dex- terity imaginable, and far beyond all that ever I had any experience of before" (148)-as well as to Moll's suggestive allusion to the governess in com- paring her apprenticeship to the fellow thief with an apprenticeship to a midwife (175). In sum, I believe we must still regard the governess as a role model for Moll's professionalization and for her proud artistry.

Lois A. CHABER

University of Qatar

Chaucer's Pardoner

To the Editor:

Although I enjoyed Melvin Storm's analysis of Chaucer's Pardoner ("The Pardoner's Invitation: Quaestor's Bag or Becket's Shrine?" PMLA 97 [1982]:810-18), my imagination balks at the idea of the Pardoner as a practical threat or an obstacle to the continuance of the pilgrimage, "a kind of walking shrine" or surrogate Saint Thomas whose powers could satisfy the desires of the pilgrims without requiring them to travel on. This is indeed the jesting assumption of the Pardoner in The Playe Called the Foure PP., who openly claims:

Euen here at home is remedy, For at your dore my-selfe doth dwell, Euen here at home is remedy, For at your dore my-selfe doth dwell,

253 253

Who coulde haue saued your soule as well As all your wyde wandrynge shall do, Though ye wente thryes to Iericho.

Though a pardoner may assert such authority, Chaucer's Pardoner has already described both his covetous aims and his fraudulent relics too clearly for him to hope to impose on the faith of his com- panions, even if he might still frighten them into accepting his services in a crisis. The Pardoner seems to offer himself not as a substitute agent for any benefits to be found at the shrine at Canter- bury but rather as travelers' insurance for the on- going journey: if "ther may fallen oon or two / Doun of his hors, and breke his nekke atwo," the Pardoner will be on the spot "whan that the soule shal fro the body passe" to render absolution for a price. Other options would be to pay premiums "anon" or "at every miles end." The spiritual pro- tection his presence affords will make the Pardoner valuable to the group only as they proceed on their way.

Whether he be "a geldyng or a mare," eunuch, homosexual, or hermaphrodite, the Pardoner is clearly not at ease with his sexual distinction. One of the pleasures his income makes possible is, he declares, to "have a joly wenche in every toun." His interruption of the Wife of Bath seems to disclose his heterosexual interests when he asks what the

cost of marriage will be on his flesh. He puts him- self forward as a young man with the thoughts of one "aboute to wedde a wyf"; marriage is to him a question of satisfaction, not of capacity.

Behind his pretense of heterosexuality, behind his covetousness and the efforts to manipulate and profit from others, may lie a sexual embarrassment that the Pardoner is eager to compensate. One way to do so would be to overreach the manly world around him and prove his powers superior, indeed almost supernatural, when they are put to the test after his Prologue confession. The Host may repre- sent a most apt challenge, not merely "because of his position [as leader]" but because "A large man he was with eyen stepe . . . / And of manhod hym lakkede right naught." The Pardoner aims to frighten the Host by challenging him to reflect on the special enormity of his sins. With his business acumen and his "manhood," the Host does not miss the points of either the money sought or the sexual difference concealed but hits home with a reference that the Pardoner must find most offensive: he de-

clares the fitness of the Pardoner's testicles, as relics, to "be shryned in an hogges toord!"

WILLIAM J. HYDE

University of Wisconsin, La Crosse

Who coulde haue saued your soule as well As all your wyde wandrynge shall do, Though ye wente thryes to Iericho.

Though a pardoner may assert such authority, Chaucer's Pardoner has already described both his covetous aims and his fraudulent relics too clearly for him to hope to impose on the faith of his com- panions, even if he might still frighten them into accepting his services in a crisis. The Pardoner seems to offer himself not as a substitute agent for any benefits to be found at the shrine at Canter- bury but rather as travelers' insurance for the on- going journey: if "ther may fallen oon or two / Doun of his hors, and breke his nekke atwo," the Pardoner will be on the spot "whan that the soule shal fro the body passe" to render absolution for a price. Other options would be to pay premiums "anon" or "at every miles end." The spiritual pro- tection his presence affords will make the Pardoner valuable to the group only as they proceed on their way.

Whether he be "a geldyng or a mare," eunuch, homosexual, or hermaphrodite, the Pardoner is clearly not at ease with his sexual distinction. One of the pleasures his income makes possible is, he declares, to "have a joly wenche in every toun." His interruption of the Wife of Bath seems to disclose his heterosexual interests when he asks what the

cost of marriage will be on his flesh. He puts him- self forward as a young man with the thoughts of one "aboute to wedde a wyf"; marriage is to him a question of satisfaction, not of capacity.

Behind his pretense of heterosexuality, behind his covetousness and the efforts to manipulate and profit from others, may lie a sexual embarrassment that the Pardoner is eager to compensate. One way to do so would be to overreach the manly world around him and prove his powers superior, indeed almost supernatural, when they are put to the test after his Prologue confession. The Host may repre- sent a most apt challenge, not merely "because of his position [as leader]" but because "A large man he was with eyen stepe . . . / And of manhod hym lakkede right naught." The Pardoner aims to frighten the Host by challenging him to reflect on the special enormity of his sins. With his business acumen and his "manhood," the Host does not miss the points of either the money sought or the sexual difference concealed but hits home with a reference that the Pardoner must find most offensive: he de-

clares the fitness of the Pardoner's testicles, as relics, to "be shryned in an hogges toord!"

WILLIAM J. HYDE

University of Wisconsin, La Crosse

This content downloaded from 168.28.240.65 on Fri, 08 Mar 2019 01:18:21 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms