Moll Flanders

Moll approaches marriage like the budding capitalist that she is: it is a fluid arrangement between two interested parties in which she can acquire some measure of financial security. During this period of English history, among the middle and upper classes, marriage was a contractual agreement between two families; a good match was one in which both families gained something in return. A good match could unite property and land, solidify business interests, or bestow prestige upon one or the other family. The state itself did not oversee marriages until 1753; thus, Moll is able to marry and remarry with ease even when the previous arrangement was not legally dissolved. Marriage, too, is of particular importance to women, especially those of the middle and upper classes. The social mores of the time barred these women from participating in the workplace, and their education consisted of training in the genteel arts, such as singing and dancing, which would make them marriageable material. Marriage was one of the few ways in which women could ensure their safety.

Moll never marries for love, though sometimes she makes overtures to romance. Her first marriage, to her first lover’s brother, is financially lucrative though morally suspect, at least for Moll. She has allowed Robert, the older brother, “to use [her] as a wife” (68), and she considers nobody else for the role of husband. Robert has to cajole her into marrying his brother, Robin: “do not stand in the way of your own safety and prosperity” (73). These sensible words alert Moll to the realities of the institution. Marriage is for economic benefit and personal security. As she embarks on her next marriages, she learns to be cautious, wily, and guarded; a woman does not reveal her assets to her potential husband, nor should she share such assets with him. She must protect herself against his habits (the spendthrift husband) or unforeseen disaster (the husband-brother). By the time she embarks upon the arrangement with the banker, she understands the rules of the game: “I played with this lover as an angler does with a trout” (145). She insists that he legally divorce his wife—she cannot have a rival to his fortune—even though she never divorces her second, third, or fourth husbands. As she admits, she “had to play the hypocrite” to negotiate the best contract (145).

The capitalist impulse that supports these arrangements is both familiar and novel. Marriage arrangements during the feudal period were almost always about political or economic advantage. But the emerging middle class of the 18th century disrupted the ancient model in that individuals had more agency in the contract. It is no longer about merging ancient and powerful family interests, but rather about creating a mutually beneficial bond between the two parties involved in the marriage. In addition, business concerns begin to supplant land and property as one of the primary reasons to establish a marriage. As Moll notes of her time in the country, “marriages were here the consequences of politic schemes for forming interests, and carrying on business, and that Love had no share, or but very little, in the matter” (83). This is the result of multiple and potent forces of history: the emerging British empire, which created more wealth and opportunity for those in the metropolitan centers; the drift away from strict religious hierarchy and into the Age of Enlightenment; and the development of new industries which also generated more wealth. When Moll leaves her brother-husband in Virginia, she notes that “I might have married again there, very much to my advantage” but she decides to return to England instead (115). She could have made more money via a match in the colonies—which she later proves—but she would rather return home. Marriage becomes a central part of the capitalist, imperialist engine that drives the developing middle class.

Finally, marriage—and by extension, its counterpart, sex work—are uniquely female concerns. Without access to an adequate education or to the marketplace itself, women had little recourse beyond securing a marriage to survive. Of course, Moll becomes quite the talented thief, but this is a dangerous profession, one hardly to be recommended for the long term. By the time Moll is of marriageable age, women must also recommend themselves to marriage via their own assets. As Robin’s sister puts it, “the market is against our sex right now; and if a young woman have beauty, birth, breeding, wit, sense, manners, modesty, and all these to an extreme, yet if she have not money, she’s nobody” (44). This new, more capitalist and secular marriage market has both men and women alike counting each other’s advantages. Further, the distinctions between marriage and sex work are often blurred: when Robert encourages Moll to marry his brother, he offers her a small fortune of £500 for the time they spent together. She called herself his wife during this time, but he never consents to marry her formally; by the conclusion of the relationship, she is paid for their time together. Marriage and sex work in Moll Flanders are presented as equal defenses against poverty, starvation, and ruin. Moll need not berate herself for her actions; after all, she is merely a savvy businesswoman.