Forfeiting One’s Comfort for Morality in Daniel Defoe’s “Moll Flanders,” Henry Fielding’s “Joseph Andrews,” and Jane Austen’s “Pride and Prejudice”

The Consequences of Forfeiting One’s Comfort for Morality in Daniel Defoe’s Moll Flanders, Henry Fielding’s Joseph Andrews, and Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice

In Daniel Defoe’s Moll Flanders, Moll writes in her Memorandums than she was “Twelve Year a Whore, five times a Wife (whereof once to her own brother), Twelve Year a Thief, eight Year a Transported Felon in Virginia, at last grew Rich, liv’d Honest and died a Penitent” (2). However, many of these circumstances could have been avoided if Moll had chosen comfort over morality.  The word “comfort,” in her case equates to “security,” which she desperately needs and seeks, but only with “moral” conscience. 

Moll’s first emotional battle over “morality” versus “security” is well captured in the event of her first marriage to Robert. For instance, when the elder brother encourages her to accept Robert’s offer—though she being an orphan knows marrying Robert will not only give her the security she needs from the harsh world, but is also the only option she has to guard herself against being homeless—she does not immediately take this offer. Rather, she is disgusted with the idea of marrying the younger, when her virginity is taken by someone else—the elder. She feels that she is morally bonded to the elder brother, though they are not legally married. She feels that she would be a prostitute in her heart if she marries the younger brother when she is in fact in love with the elder. She therefore demands moral clarification from the elder about their relationship, as well as making her own enunciation about woman’s chastity: “Will you Transfer me to your Brother? Can you Transfer my Affection?…whatever the Change of your side may be, I will ever be True; and I had much rather, since it is come that unhappy Length, be your Whore than your Brother’s Wife” (34). However, manipulated by the elder and pushed to no other alternative by the younger, Moll marries the younger brother, Robert, and attains the most needed security a young orphan girl needs—a family of her own. Nonetheless, her initial resistance to Robert’s offer deserves much credit to her high morals holding up against the temptations of security.  

Unfortunately, for Moll, the security gained through her first marriage does not last long, nor does she try to hold on to it as a widow. The security of a married woman ends as her husband, Robert, dies after five years of marriage, because she gives up the basic financial necessity and emotional security that she could have pursued and have as a widow of a prominent family. Instead, she quickly decides to leave the site of her first love because she feels she is loosing the moral battle against the imaginary incest. Moll, in her own word, explains the situation: “his Brother being so always in my sight…was a continual Snare to me; and I never was in Bed with my Husband, but I wish’d my self in the Arms of his Brother…In short, I committed Adultery and Incest with him every Day in my Desires, which without doubt, was…Criminal in the Nature of the Guilt” (49). Thus, bothered by her conscience throughout the marriage with Robert and after his death, she straight away sends her two children to live with Robert’s parents, so she can claim back her clear conscience, even if that entails forsaking security and facing danger of being all alone again.

Similarly, her third marriage to a plantation owner who is later revealed to be none other than her half brother becomes another situation that compels her to choose morality over security.  Moll marries her half brother inadvertently, both she and her husband with mercenary motives, mutually mistaking that the other party had great fortune. In light of finding out that each other has been misled into the marriage, they decide and move to Virginia where the husband has his family and plantations. For a while, the whole family get along well in America, and Moll enjoys the financial and emotional security and “th[inks] herself the happiest creature alive,” until one day she realizes that her husband’s mother is also her mother and that their marriage has been incestuous (70). Whereas with Robert, if incest was imaginary, this situation with her half brother is real enough to make all parties viscerally sick. Since she “loath[s] the Thoughts of Bedding with [her half brother],” Moll once again gives up her security for the sake of morality, and returns to England to face uncertainties and poverty (73).

Moll forgoes her security over morality again in the case of her unwanted pregnancy by Jemy. After she parts with Jemy, she realizes that she is pregnant by him. Much to her dismay, her pregnancy means that she cannot in her right conscience marry the banker who offers her the security she so desperately needs. However, abortive thoughts in regards to the life of a child—though her governess offers her help to miscarry the child—never cross her mind. Moll articulates this event to the reader: “if I was willing” she says, “[my governess] could [have] give[en] me something to make me Miscarry, if I had a desire to put an end to my troubles that way; but I soon let her see that I abhorr’d the thoughts of it” (133). In a word, rather than pursuing the security that would come by marrying the banker, she chooses the life of a child. Considering the fact that she had received offer to help her miscarry the unwanted child, Moll’s insistence in choosing the child’s life is, then, a courageous moral act on her part. Luckily, however, the banker remains devoted to Moll long enough, so the consequence of holding fast to her maternal conscience does not cost her the marriage/security itself, but the heartache of parting with the child with the “Country Woman” who shows “many a Tear,” in gratitude for receiving the child (140).  

Similarly, in Henry Fielding’s Joseph Andrews, Parson Adams suffers the consequences of substituting his comfort for moral duties. Unlike Parson Trulliber, Parson Adams is an epitome of Christ-like charity. Although his charity exposes him to inconveniences and harm, he volunteers to help those in need, namely Joseph. For instance, when Joseph injures his leg he falls into the care of the innkeeper’s wife. However, her husband berates the hostess and Joseph “for wasting Hog’s Puddings” (145). Adams being an active Christian is unable to bear such inhospitable manner of the host, so he “deal[s with] him so sound a Compliment over his Face with his Fist, that the Blood immediately gushe[s] out of his Nose in a Stream” (144). The host strikes back at Adams “with so much Gratitude, that the Parson’s Nostrils likewise began to look a little redder than usual. Furthermore, the hostess, too, ungratefully returns Adams’s heroic intervention by throwing “a Pan full of Hog’s-Blood…into the Parson’s Face” (144). Thus, because Adams chooses to referee when situations seem unjust for Joseph, he himself must suffer the injurious and humiliating consequences of being a moral parson.

Parson Adams’s another example of choosing moral duties over personal comfort occurs when he rescues Fanny from being raped. While he is almost being lectured by a gentleman who claims to be brave, he hears Fanny’s shrieks. Ironically, however, it is not the self-claimed courageous gentleman but Adams who respond to the scream and saves Fanny: “Adams, who was no Chicken…exert[s] his utmost Force at once, and with such Success, he overturn[s]” the rapist (161). Then he “call[s] aloud to the young Woman, [and says]…‘Be of good cheer, Damsel,’…’you are no longer in danger of your Ravisher” (161). Though he did not know that it was Fanny who was in trouble, his unfeigned concern for all human beings, not just the selective few, makes him react and rescue victims without any moral hesitations.

Although, Parson Adams’s fearless and selfless kindness is inauspicious to him, his goodness is constant. His unvarying kindness is evidenced by his willingness to help Fanny and Joseph while traveling together with him. Though he himself is poor and has been robbed of what little he had, he is willing to share all that he has with them, whether it be money, food, or clothing.  Because he is genuinely charitable, he believes others would likewise help him in need, and he does manage to procure help when in need. Unlike Parson Trulliber, then, Parson Adams not merely preaches charity, but lives it, and expects the same from others. Thus, Parson Adams’s continuous moral examples radiate to all those around him, though they cost him countless troubles.

Finally, we see Parson Adams’s unflinching moral character when he stands up to Lady Booby on behalf of Fanny and Joseph. Being a woman of influence, Lady Booby orders Parson Adams not to publish the “Banns” for Fanny and Joseph, but he is undaunted by her command.  Instead, he dares to counter-argue Lady Booby. He argues that he “would obey [her] in every thing that is lawful; but surely [he says,] the Parties being poor is no Reason against their marrying” (280). Furious by Adams’s protestation, Lady Booby threatens to “discard [him] from his Service,” but he is undeterred. In essence, Adams’s unwavering morality stands as a bulwark for socially inconsequential young people like Joseph and Fanny against social injustice from people like Lady Booby, and thus deserves utmost “respect” for being a true man of God.

In Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice, one’s “comfort” signifies one’s social “establishment” and one’s “morality” equates to “love” that is unfeigned. The novel’s predominant issue is marriage, especially from women’s point of view. Its female characters’ only means to gain social “establishment” is through marriage with the right man, with or without true “love.” The novel’s protagonist, Elizabeth suffers consequences of not compromising “love” for “establishment.” Although the social norms at the time expects young woman to settle more for a reasonable comfort—than true love—in a marriage, Elizabeth does not want to forsake true affection in relationships.

An example of Elizabeth’s unwillingness to sacrifice true affection for comfort is seen in the case of Mr. Collin’s proposal to her. Because Mr. Collins would inherit her family estate, he would be an ideal match for both her parents and herself to secure their present financial status.  Mr. Collins makes the offer to marry Elizabeth, and she is pressured by her mother, Mrs. Bennet, to accept his offer. By implication, Mrs. Bennet’s attitude also mirrors social expectation of women in her era, which weighs the groom’s social establishment heavier than true affections exchanged between the couple. However, Elizabeth defies social norms and ignores her mother’s demands, albeit there is that risk of Mr. Collins being her first and last chance of being married. Concerning what is at stake, when Mr. Collins finds her refusal unbelievable, she steadfastly makes certain that he understands that she is not the average girl of her time: She tells him that she is “not one of those young ladies…[and that she is] perfectly serious in [her] refusal” (93). She further shamelessly articulates her point clearly by foretelling Mr. Collins that “[he] could not make [her] happy” (93).  As this scene suggests, Elizabeth is adamant about not settling for mere comfort in a marriage. Instead, what she expects and searches for in a relationship is unfeigned love, not financial establishment.

Elizabeth’s affection for socially dubious Wickham while rejecting well suited Mr. Collins is another examples that illustrates her innate tendency to value love above men’s social recognition. Although it is only their first meeting, Wickham tells her of his misfortunate status, especially due to—as he claims—Mr. Darcy. Elizabeth nonetheless falls for him all the more, out of empathy. Irrespective of Wickham’s social standing and his personal problems with the socially formidable Darcys, she finds him sympathetic and attractive. In fact, she defends him at every turn until her high regards for Wickham is proven wrong by Darcy’s revelation about his disreputable past. Nonetheless, Elizabeth’s initial respect and loyalty shown towards Wickham reveal her honorable side—the side that can never be diluted or tempted by man’s favorable social status.

Finally, Elizabeth’s courage to resist Darcy’s first proposal attests to her virtue—the fact that she is least concerned with Darcy’s immense social status than she is about true love and respect between the couple. Later when Darcy proposes to Elizabeth for the second time, he admits how surprised he was to have her reject him the first time, but thanks her for teaching him “a lesson, hard indeed at first, but most advantageous, [because it]…properly humbled” him (308). Because Elizabeth never compromises her virtue, she is given a second chance from Darcy. For it is Elizabeth’s resolute self-respective manner towards Lady Catherine that Darcy is encouraged to propose to her for the second time. Knowing Elizabeth’s “disposition,” Darcy knew that if Elizabeth has “irrevocably decided against [him], [she] would have acknowledged it to Lady Catherine, frankly and openly” (306). For Elizabeth, it is only when the truth is revealed about Darcy—his fairness and generosity in the matters of “Wickham and Miss Darcy” and “Wickham and Lydia,”—she is able to dismiss her prejudice against him. Because she is proven wrong about Darcy’s character, she is able to love him. For Elizabeth it is man’s character—not his establishment/status—that she attracts her. Thus for Elizabeth, not only that Darcy is “violently in love” with her, but that she, too, is with him is an unnegotiable factor in her romance. (305).

In the three novels—Moll Flanders, Joseph Andrews and Shamela, and Pride and Prejudice—the common factor among the three protagonists, Moll, Adams, and Elizabeth, is that they are not hypocrites, but are characters who hold firm to high morals at all costs (except Moll who sometimes is just as immoral as she is moral). All three characters risk comfort/establishment for morality/love and suffer the due consequences. For intance, Moll often risks her security to choose what is morally right in her mind. Similarly, Parson Adams jeopardizes his physical safety and finances to help those in distress, namely Joseph and Fanny. Finally, Elizabeth likewise never considers what comfort or social establishment she may be able to obtain by marrying a certain men, but rather painstakingly scrutinizes whether mutual love and respect can be traceable in her relationships. Thus, Daniel Defoe, Henry Fielding, and Jane Austen, by giving a happy ending to their respective protagonists in their novels impart a moral lesson: that whether it be “security” for Moll, “respect” for Adams, or “love” for Elizabeth, their ultimate reward were gained by withstanding the temptations of “comfort” that comes in various forms.