Research Paper
Jason Wong
English R50
The narrators in Defoe’s Moll Flanders and Behn’s Oroonoko are difficult characters to
be fond of. From stealing childrens’ jewelry to betraying so-called friends, Moll and Behn are
incredibly ethically ambiguous. The most confusing ethical contradictions however, are so
frequent that they become intrinsic to the novels themselves: Defoe’s Moll Flanders revolves
around the fickle nature of Moll’s supposed repentance, while Behn’s narrator hypocritically
takes every chance to idolize Oroonoko, even as she is consciously contributing to his downfall.
As a result, readers cannot help but question the narrators’ reliability when their lofty ideals are
weighed against their contradictory actions. As we become more and more disillusioned by their
moral inconsistency, the next logical question is that of authorial intent: are we to believe that
Behn unknowingly portrays herself in such an unfavourable light, or do we understand Moll’s
contradictions to be evidence of Defoe’s dramatic irony? While one of the most well-documented
responses to this previous question argues that “Defoe’s primary purpose” was to give “the
impression that Moll Flanders is a literal and authentic autobiography”, making an ironic reading
“therefore unacceptable” (Watt, 115-6), I argue that the deep, almost outrageous inconsistencies
in the narrators of both Oroonoko and Moll Flanders must be seen as dramatic irony – an irony
that is not immediately apparent to the reader. When the irony does reveal itself, we realize that
the narrators’ contradictions are exaggerations of the readers’ own contradictions – resulting in
two novels that are satirical of the very reader it appeals to.
To get to this ultimate conclusion, we must first consider the narrators as fictional
creations before evaluating their moral ambiguity. As much as these so-called autobiographies
would like us to believe that the narrators are indeed the authors, we should recognize the
narrators as distinct constructs of the true authors and the novels as fictional rather than
1/8
Research Paper
Jason Wong
English R50
biographical. In the case of Moll Flanders, the literary world typically accepts the novel as a
work of fiction featuring a mostly fictional narrator. Gerald Howson’s article “Who Was Moll
Flanders?” tells us Moll “was imaginatively constructed from several women criminals of the
time, particularly two known by the names Moll King and Callico Sarah. Since Defoe was
visiting his friend, the publisher Mist, in Newgate at the same time these two ladies were there,
he would have had numerous opportunities to converse with them” (Novak 352). Howson’s
argument stems from his research on historical facts, which is enough for most academics to
agree that Moll Flanders is indeed fictional. Oroonoko, however, does not share this same degree
of agreement among literary scholars: while the book’s opening lines propose that it is an
autobiographical account of Behn’s time in Surinam, there are two reasons as to why we must
view Oroonoko as a work of fiction with Behn’s narrator as a character rather than as the author.
Firstly, a similar analysis of historical facts suggests “Mrs. Behn in Oroonoko deliberately and
circumstantially lied. No relation of hers was appointed lieutenant-general of Surinam; her
description of the colony was stolen from George Warren’s Impartial Description of Surinam;
and the events in which she says she participated were imaginary” (Bernbaum 434). Though
Bernbaum’s assertion seems overly vindictive and one sided, his research is as undeniable as
Howson’s.
Secondly, within the confines of the text itself, there are certain points when Behn slips
into an omniscient point of view. In the first half of the novel, Behn recounts the history of
Prince Oroonoko before she meets him in Surinam. This in itself is insignificant, as Behn writes
“what I could not be witness of I received from the mouth of the chief actor in this
2/8
Research Paper
Jason Wong
English R50
history” (Behn 6). However, there are times when she slides from a limited third person point of
view to an omniscient one:
While Oroonoko felt all the agonies of love, and suffered under a torment the most
painful in the world, the old king was not exempted from his share of affliction. He was
troubled from having been forced by an irresistible passion to rob his son of a treasure he
knew could not but be extremely dear to him, since she was the most beautiful that ever
had been seen, and had besides all the sweetness and innocence of youth and modesty
with a charm of wit surpassing all. (Behn 18)
In this excerpt, Behn claims to know in detail how Oroonoko’s grandfather felt towards the
whole affair. But even “the chief actor in this history” Oroonoko could not have known of the old
king’s “share of affliction” and “irresistible passion”.
If we read Oroonoko and Moll Flanders as fiction with narrators deliberately contrived
by the authors, then, it is no longer possible to dismiss the narrators’ deep ethical contradictions
as simply unabashed recollections of what actually happened. Oroonoko’s narrator places lavish
praise on the African slave prince Oroonoko throughout the book and is not shy about her
criticisms of the immoral European slavers. While this seems to suggest abolitionist tendencies,
we realize that she is also contradictorily conspiring with the slaveowners to distract Oroonoko
and keep him from his promised freedom. Upon discussing when Oroonoko and his pregnant
wife Imoinda are to be returned to their homeland, the narrator Behn writes:
I got, with much ado, a promise from him to rest yet a little longer with patience, and
wait the coming of the lord governor, who was every day expected on our shore. He
assured me he would, and this promise he desired me to know was given perfectly in
3/8
Research Paper
Jason Wong
English R50
complaisance to me, in whom he had an entire confidence. After this, I neither thought it
convenient to trust him much out of our view, nor did the country who feared him; but
with one accord it was advised to treat him fairly and oblige him to remain within such a
compass, and that he should be permitted as seldom as could be to go up to the
plantations of the Negroes, or, if he did, to be accompanied by some that should be rather
in appearance attendants than spies. (Behn 46-7)
This passage illustrates the narrator’s active manipulation: indeed, her word choice seems to
suggest that she was the very spy assigned with the task of deceiving Oroonoko. This central
conflict makes the novel that much more confusing: while the narrator’s words suggest a clear
distinction between right and wrong, her actions severely blur this dichotomy. This ethical
tension appears almost identically in Moll Flanders: like Behn’s narrator, Moll’s numerous and
deep-seated contradictions also raise questions about Defoe’s authorial intent in Moll Flanders.
The most significant contradiction is in a statement that Moll repeats over and over in various
forms throughout Moll Flanders: “The Vice came in always at the Door of Necessity, not at the
Door of Inclination” (Defoe 103) – a claim that we see denied as often as it is asserted. One of
the most memorable scenes in Moll Flanders describes Moll stealing a necklace of gold beads
from a child, where Moll continually refers to a “prompter, like a true Devil” that “set [her] upon
this innocent Creature” (Defoe 153). This scene highlights Moll’s readiness to deflect
responsibility – her extensive use of devilish imagery seems less like a plausible explanation, and
more like a desperate rationalization for her natural, sinful inclination. Indeed, the devil that she
refers to is “an evil Counsellor within” (Defoe 153). It is not until after this episode of inclination
that she mentions the necessity:
4/8
Research Paper
Jason Wong
English R50
The thoughts of this Booty put out all the thoughts of the first, and the Reflections I had
made wore quickly off; Poverty, as I have said, harden’d my Heart, and my own
Necessities made me regardless of any thing: The last Affair left no great Concern upon
me, for as I did the poor Child no harm, I only said to my self, I had given the Parents a
just Reproof for their Negligence in leaving the poor little Lamb to come home by it self,
and it would teach them to take more Care of it another time. (Defoe 153-4)
Even when she does mention the necessity, it is qualified by a list of blatant rationalizations. We
see here, then, that the central theme of vice as a result of necessity and not inclination is
contradicted by Moll’s actions and even the narrative structure: even the way she recounts this
event shows inclination first followed by necessity as a rationalization. We realize, then, that the
premise of the whole novel is really Moll’s rationalization for her life of sinning: not her
penitence. Indeed, “after Moll’s conversion in Newgate […] The post-conversion Moll is too
much like the whore and thief we already know” (O’Neill 279).
The next question we ask ourselves, then, is why the authors place these glaring narrative
contradictions into their narrators, and into their books. Herein lies the value of comparing these
two novels: one of their key similarities is that they were both published as biographies. While I
have already argued that Oroonoko and Moll Flanders are not biographies in the literal sense, the
fact that they were released as biographies nevertheless reveals interesting implications.
Regarding Oroonoko, Brownley writes:
The characters of Oroonoko are in general no more realistic than the action and setting of
the novel. Most of the characters in the story are described in exaggerated terms,
emerging as excessively good or extraordinarily bad. Practically everyone in the novel is
5/8
Research Paper
Jason Wong
English R50
exceptional: Oroonoko and Imoinda are of course perfect; the Council ‘consisted of such
notorious Villains as Newgate never transported’ (p.69); Aboan is ‘not only one of the
best Quality, but a man extremely well made and beautiful’ (p.19); Banister is ‘a Fellow
of Absolute Barbarity; (p.76). […] Only the narrator emerges as rather ordinary
(Brownley 176).
As Brownley accurately observes, Behn’s narrator is the most average of all the characters in the
novel. While Defoe’s Moll may not seem any more average than the other characters, it is
certainly an underlying idea in both these novels that the narrators are ordinary people thrust into
extraordinary circumstances. The narrators “provide an acceptable standard of judgment” in their
novels: a standard to which the common reader can compare herself (Brownley 177). This
observation leads me to believe that this is exactly what the authors intended, for the publishing
of these books as nonfictional biographies only contributes to the credibility of the narrators’
normalcy. O’Neill suggests that Defoe’s narrative strategy in Moll Flanders is to lead readers
through “the experience of error”, where “we begin by identifying with the speaker […]. The
author then involves the speaker in some important moral or intellectual error, or a series of
errors. We readers, because of our identification with the character, accept his mistaken
judgments. When the error is revealed, we discover with a shock that we are guilty of the same
fault as the speaker” (O’Neill 279-80). This is precisely the effect that is achieved in both Moll
Flanders and Oroonoko: once readers recognize the presence of the sharp dramatic irony in the
narrators’ exaggerated ethical contradictions, we begin to notice our own contradictions, and the
authors’ very conscious attempts at satirizing us.
6/8
Research Paper
Jason Wong
English R50
While the authors’ prefaces seem to challenge reading the novels as satires, careful
analysis reveals that they actually augment this interpretation. If we once again refuse to take
these prefaces at face value, they become an extension of the ironic novels themselves. In Behn’s
preface to Oroonoko, we already begin to see some of the irony that characterizes the rest of the
novel. “This is a true story of a man […] the royal slave I had the honour to know in my travels
to the other world; and though I had none above me in that country, yet I wanted power to
preserve this great man” (Behn 5). If we are to believe that the narrator really had none above her
in Surinam, then Oroonoko’s gruesome fate is a testament to her hypocrisy: though she speaks so
highly of Oroonoko’s character, she ultimately does nothing to prevent Oroonoko’s torturous
death. If we are to believe that the narrator is exaggerating her role in Surinam, then here in the
preface Behn has already provided glimpses of the narrator’s unreliable and contradictory nature.
Defoe’s preface to Moll Flanders is even more explicit: after reading Moll Flanders in its
entirety, the preface is almost laughably ironic. Defoe claims that “to give the History of a
wicked Life repented of necessarily requires that the wick’d Part should be made as wicked, as
the real History of it will bear; to illustrate and give a Beauty to the Penitent part” (Defoe 4).
However, he then mentions that after the events of the book, Moll “was not so extraordinary a
Penitent, as she was at first” (Defoe 7). Before the story has even started, Defoe has already
begun undermining Moll’s ultimate penitence. Defoe even urges the readers to be aware of his
satirical purpose, writing that “this Work is chiefly recommended to those who know how to
Read it” (Defoe 4) – suggesting that there is a correct way for the astute reader to understand
Moll Flanders.
7/8
Research Paper
Jason Wong
English R50
As to what exactly the authors are satirizing, we must look to the narrators’
contradictions: Moll Flanders deals extensively with the notion of repentance and Moll’s
ultimate inability to truly be penitent, while Oroonoko exhibits the narrator’s deep hypocrisy
regarding the treatment of Oroonoko. These themes, not surprisingly, deal with important social
issues of the authors’ times: the late 17th century in which both Defoe and Behn lived was
characterized by religious conflict in England and the prominence of slavery in English colonies.
Moll Flanders, written during a period of strong anti-Catholicism, is an attack on the Catholic
notion of redemption through works: a notion that directly conflicted with the Protestant idea of
predestination. In Moll, Defoe creates a narrator who simultaneously embodies the Catholic view
that there is always the possibility for repentance and ironically demonstrates her own
predisposition towards sin. In Oroonoko, the narrator’s idolization of the slave Oroonoko
conjures images of the romanticized noble savage, a notion that was becoming rapidly popular.
The narrator’s ultimate betrayal of Oroonoko attacks this hypocritical romanticism with the stark
realism of institutionalized slavery.
Behn and Defoe chose to write satires for a purpose: to instruct the reader. In Defoe’s
preface, he writes that Moll Flanders is “a Work from every part of which something may be
learned, and some just and religious Inference is drawn, by which the Reader will have
something of Instruction” (Defoe 5). Defoe is preaching the ineffectiveness of Catholic
redemption: there clearly is no “Beauty to the Penitent part” (Defoe 4), suggesting that the
“superlative Villain brought upon the Stage” has not two possible destinations, but one: “he is
brought to an unhappy End” (Defoe 5). Though Behn does not leave as many obvious clues for
the reader, it is clear that she similarly wrote Oroonoko to be instructive to the reader. The only
8/8
Research Paper
Jason Wong
English R50
sentence that we can truly attribute to Behn the author rather than Behn the narrator comes near
the end of her preface: “what I have mentioned I have taken care should be truth, let the critical
reader judge as he pleases” (Behn 5). The truth that Behn mentions here may not apply to the
story of Oroonoko, perhaps, but certainly to the truly hypocritical 17th century notion of the noble
savage we see throughout the book. Like Defoe, Behn challenges the critical reader to find
meaning beyond simply the superficial story that she presents. If we can do this, we see that both
Moll Flanders and Oroonoko use satire as a means of showing readers the error in disagreeing
with the authors’ viewpoints. Though we may not necessarily agree with these perspectives in the
end, this new reading of the novels as instructional satires certainly sheds new light on how
readers might understand authorial intent in Moll Flanders and Oroonoko.
9/8
Works Cited
Behn, Aphra. Oroonoko and Other Writings. Ed. Paul Salzman. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 2009.
Bernbaum, Ernest. "Mrs. Behn's Biography a Fiction." Publications of the Modern Language
Association of America. 28. 3 (1913): 432-53.
Brownley, Martine W. “The Narrator in Oroonooko.” Essays in Literature. 4. 2 (Fall, 1977):
174-81.
Defoe, Daniel, and Albert J. Rivero. Moll Flanders: An Authoritative Text, Contexts, Criticism. A
Norton critical edition. New York: W.W. Norton, 2004.
Novak, Maximillian E. “Defoe's ‘Indifferent Monitor’: The Complexity of Moll Flanders.”
Eighteenth-Century Studies 3. 3 (Spring, 1970): 351-65.
O’Neill, John H. “The Experience of Error: Ironic Entrapment in Augustan Narrative Satire.”
PLL. 18. 3 (Summer, 1982): 278-91.
Watt, Ian. The Rise of the Novel. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2001.
Evaluating Sources
Bernbaum, Ernest. "Mrs. Behn's Biography a Fiction." Publications of the Modern Language
Association of America. 28. 3 (1913): 432-453.
I used this source because there was one section in which he concisely summed up his
previous research on the historical details surrounding Aphra Behn’s supposed trip to Surinam.
An online search reveals that he was a respected professor of English at Harvard and the
University of Illinois in the early 1900’s. It was published by the MLA, and retrieved on the
MLA database, which are definitely reliable and authoritative – perfect for my purposes.
This was published quite a long time ago, back in 1913, so there may have been further
discoveries to prove the events in Oroonoko really took place. However, I did not come across
any definitive evidence either way. This work deals with Behn’s biography more than it does
Oroonoko, but there is a section that deals with Oroonoko. He mentions a previous paper1, which
more directly deals with my topic, but he sums up his entire argument pretty well in this source
so I chose to use this summary sentence from this source instead. Both these articles are mostly
comprised of statements of fact, though Bernbaum does seem overly vindictive at times. A
biography of Bernbaum reveals that he was anti-suffragist, which may explain this zealousness
to discredit one of the first female writers. However, his argument is based on facts that are hard
1
Bernbaum, Ernest. “Mrs. Behn’s Oroonoko.”Anniversary Papers by Colleagues and Pupils of
George Lyman Kittredge, Presented on the Completion of His Twenty-Fifth Year of
Teaching in Harvard University, June, MCMXIII. Boston and London: Ginn, 1913.
419-433.
to argue against, leading me to find his research useful, regardless of what his own personal
views toward Behn were.
There is a plethora of footnotes on each page substantiating each of his claims, vouching
for the accuracy of this paper. Though I found it online, it was a digitized version of a book. I
have no doubts at all about its accuracy, as it was peer reviewed and found on the MLA database.
Brownley, Martine W. “The Narrator in Oroonooko.” Essays in Literature. 4. 2 (Fall, 1977):
174-81.
Brownley’s argument was quite similar to mine, so I took the same evidence she provides
and used it in a slightly different way. Brownley tends to use the “normalness” of the narrators as
Behn’s attempt to make a character that readers can more easily relate to, while I argue that the
narrator is actually representative of the reader. Brownley is a distinguished English professor at
Emory University, who specializes in 17th and 18th century literature, leading me to believe that
she is a recognized authority in the topic she discusses. Her paper is published in Essays in
Literature, which is a scholarly journal managed by the University of Illinois, which I believe
qualifies it as a reliable publisher. The version I used was a print copy found at the Cal library.
Brownley’s essay was published relatively recently, but even so, I don’t think her
argument loses any validity over time. She deals directly with one part of my argument, the
narrator in Oroonoko. It is free of emotion-arousing words and expressions, and includes
logically concluded statements that are backed up by textual evidence and other scholarly works.
This essay has extensive endnotes from Oroonoko as well as from other scholarly
sources. I first found this peer reviewed article on the MLA database, which further adds to its
credibility.
Novak, Maximillian E. “Defoe's ‘Indifferent Monitor’: The Complexity of Moll Flanders.”
Eighteenth-Century Studies 3. 3 (Spring, 1970): 351-65.
Like the Koonce article, I used Novak’s article as a springboard for ideas. He writes
about the complex role of the narrator in Moll Flanders, which is what I dealt with in my paper.
The only direct quote I took from the article, however, was actually a summation of another
article by Gerald Howson 2. The Howson article was published in Times Literary Supplement,
which vouches for its credibility. The Novak article was published in Eighteenth Century
Studies, which is a reputable publisher for the topic of Moll Flanders. Both are scholarly
journals. Novak is an English professor at UCLA who has published frequently on Defoe,
leading me to believe that he is an authority in what he is writing about. I found this article again
on the MLA database, which is a reputable source.
This paper was published relatively recently, but that seems irrelevant as he once again
presents an argument that is timeless. The paper directly deals with a lot of the same issues in my
paper, and is free of emotion-arousing words and expressions. Though he does not use as many
footnotes as some other papers I have examined, much of his statements are backed by textual
evidence that he finds in Moll Flanders.
I have no doubts about this article’s accuracy, it was peer reviewed and found on the
MLA database.
2
Howson, Gerald. “Who Was Moll Flanders?” TLS 18 Jan. 1968: 63-64.
O’Neill, John H. “The Experience of Error: Ironic Entrapment in Augustan Narrative Satire.”
PLL. 18. 3 (Summer, 1982): 278-91.
Much of my argument actually paralleled O’Neill’s argument, which I found late in my
writing process. He had a term for what I was trying to describe, the experience of error.
However, I am not very sure as to O’Neill’s authority in the field. The publisher, a scholarly
journal called Papers on Language & Literature, also seems less well-known than other
publishers, though it is published at Southern Illinois University Edwardsville and still seems
reputable. This makes me a bit cautious about using his paper. However, because what I find
most useful are his logical conclusions based on textual evidence, I still find his paper very
useful. I also did find this paper on the MLA database, which eases some of my doubts about
O’Neill’s authority.
It was published quite recently, but again, the most useful part of his paper is in his
argument: essentially an opinion that is supported by textual evidence and other scholarly works.
This work deals directly with my topic, and is free of emotion-arousing words and expressions.
Though his paper is an opinion, his opinions are backed by factual evidence in the text.
There are many footnotes to substantiate his statements, and because it was found on the
MLA online database and peer reviewed, I do not have doubts about its accuracy.
Watt, Ian. The Rise of the Novel. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2001.
One chapter in Watt’s book analyzes Defoe as a novelist in Moll Flanders. Though we
agree that Moll Flanders is a novel, Watt believes that we cannot read the novel as ironic: I used
this statement as a counterargument. Watt was a literary critic, historian, and English professor at
Stanford University, and this book, The Rise of the Novel, is cited very often in many different
articles that I have come across. This leads me to believe that Watt is definitely a recognized
authority in this field. The publisher, the University of California, is reliable. Though this is not
the original publisher, the fact that this new edition was published by the UC press nevertheless
points to its authority.
Watt’s book was first published in 1957, but I don’t think the date affects the reliability of
Watt’s book much: it presents a viewpoint on how to read Moll Flanders. It certainly has been
used by a number of different scholarly papers with a variety of publication dates. It deals with
my paper in that Watt argues why Moll Flanders is a novel, but unlike my own argument, that it
cannot be read as ironic, but simply Defoe’s unorganized attempt at creating a realistic character.
Though Watt clearly believes very strongly in his view, the language is mostly free of emotionarousing words. Everything he says are logical opinions substantiated by textual evidence – it
seems to be very rare for there to actually be facts when dealing with these literary debates.
There are many footnotes in Watt’s book, suggesting to me that his book is accurate. He
takes great care to include textual evidence for all the claims he makes.