財富與金錢－狄福小說《羅珊娜》中婚姻、道德、及心理之探討

全文

(1)1. Introduction The eighteenth century was an era of novels. Under a trend of realism, people no longer felt satisfied with romances, 1 the predecessors of novels. Feeling that they should adopt a down-to-earth attitude rather than get interested in stories of castles in the air, people gradually turned to novels, the stories that were closer to people’s lives in the real world. To appeal to more readers, novelists put “credible characters” and “believable plots” in their works, and readers in their turn came to believe in realism. With authors’ and readers’ contribution to such stories of credibility, novels were prospering and became a new genre in the eighteenth century. Take Defoe’s Roxana for example. In the preface, the relator points out that Roxana is not a work of fictional story, but a history: [T]his Story differs most of the Modern Performances of this kind, tho’ some of them have met with a very good Reception in the world: I say, it differs from them in this Great and Essential Article, Namely, That the Foundation of This is laid in Truth and Fact; and so the Story is not a Story, but a History.. (1). Because readers’ tastes were changing toward realistic stories, it was not long before romances gave way to novels. No wonder Robert E. Lerner says, “The only really new development in the artistic and literary history of the Enlightenment period that had a promising future was the emergence of the novel” (871). As to the new writing style of clarity, exactness, and directness that contributes to the rise of the novel, we can ascribe it to two kinds of publications. One is the scientific works in the seventeenth century that are full of interest in scientific details and observation. Scientists, in order to give a full account of their experiments and observation so that other people can comprehend their ideas, had to write down detailed explanation in lengthy reports about the “facts” they see. The other kind of.

(2) 2. publication is the journals kept to record the social phenomenon. Diarists like Samuel Pepys give a full description of the news then. His Diary is a good record of the society of the seventeenth century — gossip, behavior of the court, the Great Plague (1664-65), the Great Fire in London (1666), and many other events happening in his time. Because of this writing style of catching reality, other writers were inspired to record the so-called “sensible reality.” This idea of reflecting reality in novels — experiences must be unique, plots and settings must be believable, and the manner of presentation has to be straightforward — is also explained by J. Paul Hunter and Mikhail M. Bakhtin. According to Hunter, novels should exhibit “contemporaneity” and “credibility.” 2 His idea of a novel is a piece of integrated work that is modern, up to date, close to contemporary people, easy to be digested, and that gives a believable story. When a novel is read, there should be little distance between the text and the readers. As to Bakhtin, he gives four points to the prerequisites for the novel: (1) the novel should not be “poetic,” as the word “poetic” is used in other genres of imaginative literature; (2) the hero of a novel should not be “heroic” in either the epic or the tragic sense of the word: he should combine in himself negative as well as positive features, low as well as lofty, ridiculous as well as serious; (3) the hero should not be portrayed as an already completed and unchanging person but as one who is evolving and developing, a person who learns from life; (4) the novel should become for the contemporary world what the epic was for the ancient world.. (10). Bakhtin explains the difference between epics and novels — epic heroes are not accessible to readers, while characters in novels arouse readers’ resonance because of the similarity between them. He continues that “novel’s roots must ultimately be.

(3) 3. sought in folklore” and that “the absolute past, tradition, hierarchical distance played no role in the formation of the novel as a genre” (38). Cut from the traditional past, what the novel presents is “contemporaneity” shown by forms of letters, diaries, confessions, and so forth that are records of common life and common people. Bakhtin goes on: “From the very beginning the novel was structured not in the distanced image of the absolute past but in the zone of direct contact with inconclusive present-day reality” (39). Both Hunter and Bakhtin contend that novels must be characterized by “contemporaneity,” “reality” and “accessibility.” Just as Ian Watt puts it: “It is therefore likely that a measure of secularization [my italics] was an indispensable condition for the rise of the new genre” (93). An important factor that contributes to the rise of the novel is the rise of the reading public. Because England was more involved in industry and trade than France and other countries, it has a larger non-aristocratic reading public, which makes England the modern novel’s first home (see Lerner 671). This non-aristocratic class preferred novels to roma nces simply because novels were written in gripping style and the characters seem to be more prosaic, secular and common to their experiences. Therefore, with these people’s support, novels stride into prosperity. Watt comments on this new reading class as “a reading public…largely independent of traditional literary standards, and which was therefore a potential public for a literary form unsanctified by established critical canon” (57). Compared with the past, the eighteenth century reading people increased a lot, and their reading tastes and habits are also not the same as previous readers’. But how did this independent reading public show up? We should owe the reason to the social mobility brought by economic reformation at that time. Capitalism and mercantilism that result in economic reformation were the force that shattered the hierarchy of the society. The overseas exploration in the sixteenth.

(4) 4. century and the colonization in the seventeenth century offer a promising basis for capitalism.. Capitalism, according to Lerner, is “a system of production, distribution,. and exchange, in which accumulated wealth is invested by private owners for the sake of gain. Its essential features are private enterprise, competition for markets, and business profit” (554). In brief, it is a system designed to reward the individual and make one rich. Because of this trend of seeking money, many merchants invested in large quantities of manufactured goods in order to gain profit. If necessary, they hold their goods until they could command a higher price. Subjects of business were in people’s mouths every day, and businessmen tried every means to achieve the greatest wealth. Watt explains well: “[T]he industrial capitalism becomes the dominant force in the economic structure” (71). Mercantilism went with capitalism.. Merchants were respected and admired. in this trade era. Lerner says, “[T]he goal of capitalism was a commercial system that would make individual rich. The goal of mercantilism was a system that would make the state powerful” (556). Based on both the private desire to make one’s fortune and the patriotic wish to make the state strong, many novelists have their protagonists undergo a query of wealth and have them succeed after a journey of labor. Take Defoe for example. His protagonists Robinson Crusoe, Moll Flanders and Roxana are all money seekers. These characters try to become rich by running business, and after some years’ diligence they finally make it. The eighteenth century is a time when mercantilism and capitalism prevail. As people in real world dream of becoming rich, characters in novels labor for wealth too. What is the result that capitalism and mercantilism bring about? Well, with the social mobility and the possibility that poor people may get rich by correct investment, there comes up a new social rank called the middle class. Because those who make a fortune are allowed to climb up the social ladder to a higher status of the.

(5) 5. society, even to buy some titles to make themselves eminent, the social hierarchy is no longer as rigid as it was. There is always a reward for working hard, and with money people can buy almost everything, including titles, which stands for social status and dignity. Hence, people of lower class work hard, hoping to mix with the upper class one day. This mobility in climbing up the social ladder is soon adopted by novelists as contents of their works. The idea that protagonists never remain the status quo and struggle for a better life becomes the theme of novels. Defoe’s Roxana is such a character. She never surrenders to poverty; instead, she strives for fame and wealth, and finally she succeeds in socializing with the well-to-do. Ian A. Bell points out that the title of Roxana has indicated this: The full title does not disclose the mode of the tale, but stresses the social mobility it contains: The Fortunate Mistress; or, a History of the life and vast variety of fortunes of Mademoiselle de Beleau, afterwards called the Countess de Wintselsheim in Germany being the person known by the name of the Lady Roxana in the time of Charles II. (154) The middle class, or the bourgeoisie, as the French term goes, is the main class where we find fortune hunters and novel readers. A bourgeois is originally a burgher or townsman who is a long-term, resident property owner or leaseholder and taxpayer.. By the eighteenth century, it had become the meaning of a townsman of. some means aspiring to be recognized as a person of local importance. He is sure to work hard; at the same time he wants to live a comfortable though may not be very extravagant life. He has money, leisure, even the right to take part in politics. He might be an industrialist, a banker, a professional, a physician, a merchant, or a lawyer. This non- noble middle class or bourgeoisie gradually formed a threatening menace to the aristocrats with the grandeur of their wealth. With such a special identity, they.

(6) 6. are often despised by the aristocracy. “Bourgeois,” a French writer observed, “is the insult given by noblemen to anybody they deem slow-witted or out of touch with the court” (qtd. in Lerner 585). In spite of the hatred coming from the nobles, their influence on the society is by no means to be ignored; after all, they constituted about 20 to 25 percent of a town’s population and dominated the majority of cities and towns by the eighteenth century. Furthermore, they were the main advocators of novels who contribute to the prosperity of publishing industry. There are two reasons for the middle class to become the primary novel readers. One is that they had the time and the ability to read. 3. Since they have money, they. can receive better education and spend free time on reading. The other reason is that they favor the stories in novels, because reading novels is like reading their own stories in real life. Among the middle class readers, women are particularly the main group that bring about novels’ popularity. The reason is very simple — women usually have more free time than men. Addison explains the phenomenon in the Guardian (1713): “There are some reasons why learning is more adapted to the female world than to the male. As in the first place, because they have more spare time on their hands, and lead a more sedentary life.” Addison’s idea may be explained by two points. First, due to the economic specialization brought by capitalism, what had to be done by women no longer needed them to take care. For instance, in Tudor society, women had to do gardening, home-weaving, pet-keeping, baking, and so on, but by the early eighteenth century, all the work was attended to by professionals, such as a baker in every parish or village to deal with the baking. Second, women were not allowed to engage in manfolk activities like politics, business, hunting and drinking. Being forbidden to participate in these things, women of the middle class often have more leisure time, and in order to kill time, they engross themselves in omnivorous reading. To satisfy the abundance of woman.

(7) 7. readers, novelists usually write in their works about female problems. This is why Watt observes: “[T]here was a parallel tendency for literature to become a primarily feminine pursuit” (48). As novel plays the role of a new genre and wins readers’ heart, it has disadvantages too. The most prominent of them is the market law that controls the contents and the length. In the past when writing was under patronage, the patrons seldom interfered with the contents of the works, and therefore literature was not controlled by the authorities. Its direction came mainly from great thinkers, and writers could write “real literature” and “pure works.” But as patronage gradually fades away and market law begins to take over control, writing becomes an industrial act, and writers have to be aware of the selling of their books. Under the pressure of sales, writers try to write about topics that appeal to the public. Besides, they lengthen the texts (especially of novels) within a short time so as to earn more pay. Watt points out one of the causes 4 of the fast-writing and the length of the novel is that “since it was the bookseller, not the patron, who rewarded him [the author], speed and copiousness tended to become the supreme economic virtues” (62). To the conservatives, such a fast writing in exchange with money is not literature at all, and to some authoritative writers, novels were considered a second-rate and inferior genre. Though novel was attacked by some critics as informal and second-rate, it was still prospering and welcomed in the eighteenth century. Among the novelists, Daniel Defoe (1660-1731) is called “the father of the novel.” Watt comments that “it is Defoe, rather than Bunyan, who is often considered to be our first novelist” (89). Defoe is typical of the eighteenth-century middle class and social climbers. He is wise, clever, independent, fond of money, and he makes his fortune only by his own efforts without others’ help. He is like his protagonists who struggle for their living and then succeed in the end. In the following paragraphs, I’d like to give a brief.

(8) 8. account of Defoe’s life and his career as a writer. Young Defoe was brought up in the strict yet independent beliefs of the Dissenters. He was born in a middle class family in London and went to a Dissenters’ academy 5 at 14. In the school, in addition to the traditional Latin and Greek, he had to study French, Italian, Spanish, history and geography. He had planned to study for the ministry, but in 1685 he went into business. Defoe began his business as a small merchant and soon succeeded in foreign trade.. Being a business man, he toured around the Continent, including Italy,. Germany and France. He lived in Spain for some time too.. Because of his. journeys in many foreign countries, his novels are colored with some exotic hue, such as Roxana’s tour with the prince through Europe in Roxana. A successful business man though he often was, he didn’t always take care of his trades well. Soon, he went bankrupt. In 1692 his debt was up to 17,000 pounds. Though he was in great debt, he was determined not to be knocked down by his bankruptcy. Like his heroes and heroines, he decided to pay his debts off by writing, and within ten years, he had cleared up the money he owed. He always found ways to reconcile tough conditions with his genuine Nonconformist piety. His restless mind was fertile in “projects,” both for himself and for the country. Defoe was enthusiastic about politics, 6 and his itch for politics made it impossible for him to be only a passive observer without taking part in it. He had participated in William’s troops and joined in the Glorious Revolution in 1688. After William’s succession, he served in the court. Being an ardent Whig, he was notorious for his political verses and pamphlets. Among his political articles, the one that brought him the greatest crisis is the pamphlet written in 1702 after the death of William titled “The Shortest Way with the Dissenters,” satirizing the Tories’ persecution of Dissenters. He was then attacked by the Tories and arrested by the.

(9) 9. government. For three days in 1703 he stood locked in the pillory while people brought him flowers. He wrote about this experience later in verses called “Hymn to the Pillory.” After some months in prison he was released in 1704 by the help of Robert Harley (later earl of Oxford). For the next eleven years Harley became Defoe’s patron. During this time Defoe not only wrote political pamphlets for Harley but also served as his secret agent in working for the union of Scotland and England. His experience in being a hidden spy, who traveled throughout the island, gave reports back to his patron and took some impersonations, was later applied in his works Moll Flanders and Roxana. In spite of his identity as a politician and tradesman, Defoe was more interested in writing. His lively mind was taken up with problems of the day, and he wrote them down in pamphlets, verses, and periodicals, crying for social reforms. Observing the living world, he called for a change in whatever problems existing in religious practices, economics, social welfare, and politics. His special care about the society prompted him to write down his “Essay on Projects” in 1698, in which he suggested a national bank, reformed laws on bankruptcy, the foundation of asylums, and the establishment of academies of learning. His concern about the environment is an expression of the spirit of the eighteenth century realism. When Defoe was nearly sixty, his energy and creativity enabled him to start a new career — as a novelist. As contemporary people did not care for fiction, Defoe wrote “true histories” of pirates and thieves, spicing facts with imagination. In 1719, at the age of 59, he published his first novel Robinson Crusoe, which was drawn from the experiences and memoirs of a British sailor, Alexander Selkirk. 7. After the first. novel, he published other works within six years one after anothe r: Captain Singleton (1720), Colonel Jacque (1722), Moll Flanders (1722), and Roxana (1724). In these.

(10) 10. novels, Defoe was able to use all his greatest gifts — the ability to re-create a milieu vividly. Defoe took great delight in the idea of pursuing wealth. To highlight this idea of money, he had his protagonists become fortune hunters. For example, Robinson Curoe accumulates wealth from his exploration on the deserted island, captain Singleton plunders fortune from his pirating, Colonel Jacque pickpockets money, Moll Flanders steals, and Roxana prospers through prostitution. All these characters put money in the first place, which is the embodiment of contemporary capitalism and mercantilism, and it is this money seeking that interest readers of the centur y. Defoe’s writing skill had a great influence on later novelists such as Richardson (1689-1761) and Fielding (1707-1754). He recommended a “plain and homely style.” M. H. Abrams comments on Defoe’s writing that it is: through the cumulative effect of carefully observed, often petty details; a special skill in writing relaxed and careless prose, the language of actual speech, which seems to reveal the consciousness of the first-person narrator; his wide knowledge of the society in which he lived, both the trading bourgeoisie and the rogues who preyed on them; and his absorption in the spectacle of lonely human beings, whether Crusoe on his island or Moll Flanders in England and Virginia, somehow bending a stubborn and indifferent environment to their own ends of survival or profits. (1942-43). Observing the people and the environment around him, Defoe was said to be the first writer “who did not take plots from mythology, history, legend, or previous literature” (Watt 14). His fiction “presents us with a picture both of individual life in its larger perspective as a historical process, and in its closer view which shows the process being acted out against the background of the most ephemeral thoughts and actions”.

(11) 11. (26). He uses the first narrative to have readers enter the inner world of the heroes or heroines. It is this to-the- moment style that fulfills the characteristic of novels: contemporaneity and realism. Of course, like the genre of novel is attacked by some critics, Defoe’s writing style and contents of making money are not appreciated by all authoritative writers, either. For example, Jonathan Swift despised him, regarding his works only for pleasure and not willing to mention his name. In spite of this, Defoe’s contribution to novels and his role as the first novelist is not to be denied. What is admired is that he was not educated authoritatively but he should become a knowledgeable man, whose knowledge was abundant enough to offer him materials for writing. He could write almost everything — politics, history, geography, religion, economics, sex, marriage, psychology, superstition, magic, and so on. His various roles in his life — merchant, secret agent, journalist, soldier, politician — were adapted in his novels and made his works full of credibility. Being practical, self-reliant, independent, active, energetic and creative, Defoe is an emblem of the “new Englishman” in the time of Enlightenment. In his preface to a 1706 pamphlet A Reply to a Pamphlet, Entitled “The Lord Haversham’s Vindication of His Speech…,” he illustrated well what an eighteenth-century figure he was: [H]ow I stand alone in the world, abandoned by those very people that own I have done them service;…how, with…no helps but my own industry, I have forced misfortune, and reduced them, exclusive of composition, from seventeen to less than five thousand pounds; how, in goals, in retreats, in all manner of experiments, I have supported myself without the assistance of friends or relations.. (qtd. in Watt. 100) He is such a lively person, and he merges his own character in his heroes and heroines..

(12) 12. Abrams concludes: “[T]here is something of himself in all his protagonists: enormous vitality, humanity, a scheming and sometimes sneaky ingenuity” (1943). Roxana, Defoe’s last novel, is the work I want to discuss in the following chapters. For a long time, this Defoe’s last work was overlooked; it even was barely mentioned in Ian Watt’s The Rise of the Novel.. Roxana is the last though, it is by no. means the least. The heroine Roxana is different from Defoe’s other protagonists, for she is the only one who ends with tragedy rather than happiness as in other novels. Bell says that Roxana is different from Defoe’s earlier works: Defoe’s last major extended fiction, Roxana, The Fortunate Mistress (1724), is significantly different from all the earlier narratives, and deserves to be seen as his most successful tale in terms of internal organization and structural coherence. It is certainly the most unified of Defoe’s narratives, with the sustained and persistent examination of its central figure.. (153). Whether it is in terms of contents or structure, Roxana is bound to be outstanding among all Defoe’s works. Like Defoe’s other protagonists, Roxana is a successful business woman, who is independent, self- sufficient and makes a lot of money. But what is the most important and makes her different is the moral issue in the novel. Under the cover of her prosperous business, Roxana privately undergoes a surge of mental chaos. On the one hand she is getting wealthier and wealthier, but on the other hand she cannot escape the self-blame for the wickedness of her selling morality. There is a great change in her mind that transforms her into a different person. In the beginning of the novel, Roxana is an innocent victim of a wrong marriage; but in the end of the story, she becomes a vain woman who simply prostitutes for money. There are many issues that can be discussed in the novel, such as patriarchy, marriage, a woman who.

(13) 13. carries business, disguise, morality, and psychology. I have them divided into four topics in four chapters respectively, with which I hope to give a clear analysis from different angles about the process of Roxana’s change. In Chapter One, I will talk about Roxana’s marriage. Roxana is a victim to a foolish husband, and since then she is terrified at the thought of getting married. Because she is sacrificed under the patriarchal rules of marriage, she no longer believes in patriarchal regulations on women. However, her remaining single is not totally because of the fear to encounter another irresponsible husband, but partly because of making money. In order to take care of her business, she excludes any possibility of getting married again, lest she should give up all her wealth to her husband and become poor as she was before. In Chapter Two, I want to discuss Roxana’s business. Defoe approves of women’s ability in managing business and making money, and he has Roxana become a successful business woman under his pen. After making a fortune, Roxana climbs up the social ladder and mixes with the upper class. However, her vanity is never satisfied even when she has become the center of balls and has won much praise. She always wants more. Her vanity drives her along and makes her a money-making machine. In the third chapter, I will give an analysis of the two Roxanas — the public one and the private one. While the public Roxana puts on disguises and presents gorgeously in front of people, the private Roxana hides in the dark and suffers from the bitter remorse against morality. To present the two Roxanas, there are two narratives taking turns — one is the ambitious desire to achieve fame and wealth; the other is the blaming tone that reproaches the evil deeds. I would like to apply Bakhtin’s terms of centripetal and centrifugal to account for Roxana’s private side and her public self..

(14) 14. As to the last chapter, I will explore into the close relationship among Roxana, Amy and Susan in light of Freudian terms of ego, id and super-ego. It is a coincidence that the three terms in Freud’s psychoanalysis are correspondent to the three characters in Roxana. Amy stands for the id, who is instinct-oriented, aggressive, and doesn’t care about social morality; Roxana represents the ego, who is the mistress of the id, who contacts the environment, and who is under social regulations; Susan is like the super-ego, who represents conscience that judges Roxana’s evil deeds and drives Roxana crazy at the end of the novel..

(15) 15. Notes 1.. From the fifteenth century on, there were prose fictions known as romances.. Before novels, romances were the dominant form of prose literature. The French word roman means both romance and novel, but Lerner has a best way of characterizing the difference between them: “[T]he former is patently a fabrication, whereas the latter [allowing a few inevitable exceptions] purports to be a reliable account of how human behave” (671). Because the eighteenth-century readers no longer feel satisfied with fictio nal stories in romances, they turn to novels. In this way, romances became disfavored and novels rose in turn, and around the middle of the eighteenth century the word “novel” became the dominant and standard term. 2.. Hunter gives ten features to novels: (1) contemporaneity; (2) credibility and. probability; (3) familiarity; (4) rejection of traditional plots; (5) tradition-free language; (6) individualism; (7) empathy and vicariousness; (8) coherence and unity of design; (9) inclusivity, digressiveness, fragmentation: the ability to parenthesize; (10) self-consciousness about innovation and novelty. See page 24. 3.. We should notice that though the reading ability improved considerably if. compared to the previous century, the reading people were still few and far between if compared to the whole population. In the early modern Europe, the knowledge of Latin separated the aristocracy and scholars from the commercial middle class, while the ability to read separated the middle class from the rest of the population.. In the. society of eighteenth-century England, it was the illiterate poor people that took up the major part of the population. At the bottom of the society, there were a large number of semi-skilled and unskilled workers, carters, porters, stevedores, dockers, water carriers, sweepers, seamstresses, laundresses, cleaners, and domestic servants. They lived on the margin of life, battling unemployment and epidemics. Since they lived in poverty and shortage, it is impossible for them to receive the training to read..

(16) 16. Therefore, the number of the literacy is not big if in proportion to the whole population. Watt says, “[B]eing able to read was a necessary accomplishment only for those destined to the middle-class occupations — commerce, administration, and the professions” (43). Though the educational opportunities for peasants and workers remain meager by modern standards, what’s significant is that the literacy rates were still on the increase in the seventeenth century and the eighteenth century, and that the reading ability is no longer restricted to the aristocracy. 4. Another cause is that the explicit writing and detail description that lengthen the novel may help the less-educated readers understand the story in the works. 5. The Foes were Dissenters, or Nonconformists. The terms mean those who did not believe in certain practices of the Church of England. 6. Though Defoe is interested in politics, his political standpoint is not very steady, for he shifts between the Tories and the Whigs. In 1704, he founded the Review, speaking for Robert Harley’s Tories and policies. His Whiggism did not seem to hinder him from following Harley’s lead, even when Harley became head of a Tory ministry in 1710. In 1708 Harley lost his power, and Defoe turned around to support the Whigs. In 1710 when Harley came back to his political stage again, Defoe once more turned to Harley. After the fall of the Tories in 1714, he went over to the triumphant Whigs and served them as royally as he did to their enemy. Defoe is really no t a politician with firm political ideas. 7. Alexander Selkirk (1676-1721) was born in Largo, Scotland, in 1676 to a shoemaker.. In 1695, he ran away to sea and joined a band of buccaneers. In. September 1704 while he was serving a sailing master, he quarreled with his captain and was put ashore on an uninhabited island. The island was the Mas a Tierra in the Juan Fernandez Islands, which was 400 miles west of Valparaiso, Chile. Alexander stayed on it alone and lived by himself for almost five years. Until February 1709 he.

(17) 17. was discovered and rescued by a British ship commanded by Woodes Rogers. In October 1711 Alexander returned to England. After the adventure, he then published “Cruising Voyage Round the World,” which included his life on the island. When Defoe was writing Robinson Crusoe, it is apparent that he drew inspiration from Alexander’s publication. Alexander Selkirk died at sea on December 12, 1721..

(18) 18. Chapter 1. Roxana’s Marriage. Never, Ladies, marry a Fool; any Husband rather than a Fool; with some other Husbands you may be unhappy, but with a Fool you will be miserable.. (Roxana 8). In Roxana, the protagonist’s concept of marriage is always an issue under discussion. Roxana’s experience in marital life is not quite happy, and her concept of marriage goes to extremity. True, she is a victim of the contemporary marital system, because she gets married to a man who seems an ideal company at first but later turns out to be a worthless husband. When he goes bankrupt and has no more money to support his family, he cruelly leaves Roxana and her five children without so much as saying goodbye, leaving them to live or die. Having had to deal with such an irresponsible husband, she feels quite disappointed in marriage. Specifically, she no longer dares to trust any man, let alone the thing called a “husband.” When Roxana’s husband deserts her, her girlhood dream of happy marriage is shattered at once. From then on, marriage becomes her pain, and her conception of the role marriage plays in a woman’s life becomes bizarre and hard to understand. Though she later becomes rich by striving for her business of prostitution (which we’ll discuss in the next chapter), and her fame and wealth attract many suitors to propose marriage to her (many of them are better than her husband of course), she still rejects them and decides to draw a line against marital life. Maybe she is afraid of getting married, and perhaps she finds marriage useless to her. In this chapter, I will begin with her actual experience in marital life, the influence of the patriarchal system on her, and then move to the lengthy debate between Roxana and the Dutch merchant over marriage, and finally come to her self-banishment from the patriarchal realm and.

(19) 19. her mental disturbance. Many critics agree that Roxana’s miserable marriage is the trigger that swings her away from the marriage system. Before she gets married, she is like other girls who dream of marrying a good husband and then living a happy life. From her self- introduction she appears very self-confident, believing that she is an ideal woman to be a wife: I was (speaking of myself as about Fourteen Years of Age) tall, and very well made; sharp as a Hawk in Matters of common Knowledge; quick and smart in Discourse; apt to be Satyrical; full of Repartee, and a little too forward in Conversation; or, as we call it in English, BOLD, tho’ perfectly Modest in my Behaviour. Being French Born, I danc’d, as some say, naturally, lov’d it extremely, and sung well also, and so well, that, as you will hear, it was afterwards some Advantage to me: With all these Things, I wanted neither Wit, Beauty, or Money. In this Manner I set out into the World, having all the Advantages that any Young Woman cou’d desire, to recommend me to others, and form a Prospect of happy Living to myself.. (Roxana 6-7). She thinks that such a nice girl as she who is well-educated, well- mannered, tall, beautiful, versatile is worth a good man. She is very confident that she must overcome other girls in many ways if competing with them for a man. Her confidence indeed begets her a “good” husband. One year later, she gets married: “my Father gave me, as he call’d it in French, 25000 Livres, that is to say, two Thousand Pounds Portion, and married me to an Eminent Brewer in the City” (7). 1 She is satisfied with her newly-wed husband, whom she describes as close to an ideal companion for any woman: He was a jolly, handsome Fellow, as any Woman need wish for a.

(20) 20. Companion; tall, and well made; rather a little too large, but not so as to be ungentile; he danc’d well, which, I think, was the first thing that brought us together. (7) It seems that everything should have gone well and happy life should have befallen her after the marriage. After all, they are a conventional ideal of a couple: a beautiful wife, a handsome husband, rich and leisured. However, her happy narrative lasts no more than three pages. She soon changes to a warning tone, advising her fellow creatures that for future happiness’s sake, “Never, Ladies, marry a Fool” (8). Four years after her father dies and six years after her father-in- law passes away, her husband grows more slack in his business (he has already been an idle businessman), keeps bad company, makes less and less money, and cares nothing about the future. It is not long before her husband turns out to be “the Foundation of my Ruin,” “a weak, empty-headed, untaught Creature” (7). Very soon, Roxana comes to the threshold of her misery; what’s worse, she can do nothing to prevent it. They go bankrupt, her husband leaves, her children are sent away, and she is left alone in hopelessness. When her maid Amy sends for the poor woman who has been dependent on her parents before to help, what they see exp lains well the predicament she is in: [T]hey saw me in Rags and Dirt, who was but a little before riding in my Coach; thin, and looking almost like one Starv’d, who was before fat and beautiful: The House, that was before handsomely furnish’d with Pictures and Ornaments, Cabinets, Peir-Glasses, and every thing suitable, was now stripp’d, and naked, most of the Goods having being seiz’d by the Landlord for Rent, or sold to buy Necessaries; in a word, all was Misery and Distress, the Face of Ruin was every where to be seen; we had eaten up almost every thing, and little remain’d, unless,.

(21) 21. like one of the pitiful Women of Jerusalem, I should eat up my very Children themselves.. (17-8). What good does marriage bring to her? In terms of Roxana, her marriage does not benefit her much; on the contrary, it only pushes her to disaster and hunger. In the beginning, she does what she is taught — equipping herself with wifely virtues so as to hope for a happy marriage, but little does she think that the teaching she receives should finally fail her. As to her miserable marriage, John J. Richetti puts forward an explanation. He ascribes it to the masculine force on women, thinking that women are victims under the patriarchal system. He contends that Roxana, a work belonging to the genre of the Chronique scandaleuse, 2 “presents a world of upper-class violence and sensuality where women are the main victims [my italics] of those urges, where values identified by the narratives as specifically masculine and assertive such as avarice, ambition, and lust defeat such specifically ‘feminine’ passive traits as submission, simplicity, honesty, and chastity” (Defoe’s Narrative 193). To Richetti, masculine values are so strong that it takes the lead over feminine ideas, and this is why Roxana is sacrificed to its power. As to patriarchal force, Lerner Gerdan has a clear explanation of it in his book The Creation of Patriarchy. He says, “Patriarchy is a historic creation formed by men and women in a process which took nearly 2500 years to its completion” (212). In the system, men are put in the center while women are in the margin. Definitions are given through men’s view instead of women’s or both’s. Because of this male monopoly over the rights of everything, women have few resources at hand to compete by, and thus become less competitive and finally turn to be the less powerful gender. Under patriarchy women usually face tough conditions. First of all, they are “commodified.”. Records show that women were regarded as goods with a certain.

(22) 22. exchange value. There had been examples in ancient times that women were exchanged by men to avoid warfare and pawned to pay off debts. 3 In addition, because women were controlled by men, they could not live by themselves (or it was very difficult for them to do so). Under patriarchy, a woman has to rely on a man for her living — whether it is her father, husband, master or son. She shares the man’s privileges and disasters. If he is in poverty or in misery, she either suffers with him or is forced to seek protection from another man. Gerdan explains this phenomenon: “Women always shared the class privileges of men of their class as long as they were under ‘the protection’ of a man” (218); “Thus, wo men were often forced to flee from one ‘protector’ to the other” (219). After the explanation of patriarchy, let’s go back to Roxana’s case. We see Roxana’s labor to “commodify” herself.. To begin with, she follows conventional. patriarchal rules for women, turning herself into a valuable wife-to-be. However, her husband does not guarantee her happiness, nor a sense of security in economy, and she soon falls into a miserable condition. It is quite ironic that she encounters this tragedy simply because she obeys the expected regulations on women. Roxana comes to the realization that it is not necessary for her to yield some benefits from marriage, and that the patriarchy does not promise women any certain happy life. In men’s view, a woman has to rely on her husband and is protected by him. But if the woman encounters a worthless husband like Roxana’s, who should she turn to for living?. Roxana’s first marriage daunts her. As the saying goes that “once bitten,. twice shy,” she would rather stubbornly resist any proposals to her than take any risky chance to get married again. Phyllis Chesler says that marriage is “based on a woman’s helplessness and dependency on a stronger male authority figure” (373). Because under patriarchy, a woman is conventionally weak and dependent, so she needs a man to protect her..

(23) 23. But think about the sentence from the opposite side. If a woman is neither helpless nor dependent, does she still need marriage to shelter beneath? As far as Roxana is concerned, she may answer “no.” Firstly, she is getting independent. Since her husband disappeared, she no longer regards a husband as an indispensable thing. Of course she is weak and fragile at first when she finds herself deserted: “I had no recourse but to my Tears”; “What to do I knew not, nor to whom to have recourse” (Roxana 13). Later, the tough condition makes her strong: “As to my Husband, I had now no Hope or Expectation of seeing him any more…he was the Man, of all the Men in the World, the least able to help me” (14); “I had…Encouragement from what was past” (171). Through her experiences, Roxana becomes as independent a woman as in her times only men can be. Secondly, Roxana is becoming economically self-sufficient, and money makes her fear nothing. After she becomes rich (even though the immoral source of her money is a point of frequent controversy), she no longer needs a man to earn her living. With abundant wealth at hand, she needn’t worry about hunger or poverty. As to the man called a husband, she thinks he can be dispensed with. As long as a happy life that does not want anything is open to her, albeit not a married life, she can live as happy as a contented married woman. Roxana’s stand against marriage is comprehensible so far. On the one hand, marriage under the patriarchy does not necessarily promise happiness; on the other hand, Roxana’s business of prostitution brings her much money, which lessens her dependence on a single man for economic needs. We may get a clearer picture from the passage of the lengthy debate between Roxana and the Dutch merchant over advantages and disadvantages of marriage at about one-third of the novel. This debate continues through 20 pages, in which Roxana gives some different reasons to refuse the Dutch merchant’s courtship. From the passage, we learn that behind.

(24) 24. Roxana’s confidence in her wealth, she is actually suffering from an anxiety about money. Having endured great poverty, Roxana values money more highly than a husband, thinking the former is more reliable than the latter. Not to venture any possibility of her money being taken away, she obstinately rejects any proposal. But although she takes a firm attitude refusing the Dutch merchant, when he leaves disappointedly, she regrets her foolishness in refusal. In her mind, there is some irresolution that troubles her. In the following pages, I want to analyze the debate. It begins when the Dutch merchant lies in bed with Roxana and asks her to marry him. He says, “I am ready to marry you still, and desire you to let it be done to-Morrow Morning; and I will give you the same fair Conditions of Marriage as I wou’d have done before” (Roxana 143). But Roxana just “construed it quite another Way,” thinking that “he aim’d at the Money,” and “If I shou’d be a Wife, all I had then, was given up to the Husband…as I had Money enough, and needed not fear being what they call a cast-off Mistress, so I had no need to give him twenty Thousand Pound to marry me” (144). Pondering the question of money secretly, she replies to him with another excuse: “[A]s to marrying, which was giving up my Liberty…I had an Aversion to it.” The Dutch merchant goes on: “Come, my Dear, you are the first Woman in the World that ever lay with a Man, and then refus’d to marry him…there must be some other Reason for your Refusal…If I guess at the true Reason, and remove the Objection, will you then yield to me?” (146) Then Roxana reasons: “[I]f he remov’d the Objection, I must needs comply, for I shou’d certainly do every-thing that I had no Objection against” (146). When the Dutch merchant raises the proposal for the first time, Roxana’s immediate response is worrying about her money. She is concerned about her wealth to a great degree and fears to lose her money if she gets married. After the terrible experience of nearly starving to death, no wonder she has considered money.

(25) 25. the symbol of safety now and never let go of it. Though she worries much about her money, she conceals this fear in her heart and gives a seeming excuse that she is worried about the loss of freedom after marriage. The Dutch merchant is not convinced and offers the desire to realize the true reason. To make Roxana consent, he promises to remove her worries, while Roxana grants to marry him if her worries are really lifted. Then the Dutch merchant begins to guess the true reason. After trying several times, he hits the target: “I will not touch one Pistole of your Estate…neither now, or at any other time, but you shall settle it as you please, for your Life, and upon who you please after your Death” (147). Hearing this, Roxana is surprised. The promise he offers is so unexpected that Roxana can hardly believe her ears: “He had indeed, remov’d my principal Objection, nay, all my Objections, and it was not possible for me to give any Answer.” She continues thinking to herself: [I]f upon so generous an Offer I shou’d agree with him…it was upon the Account of my Money that I refus’d him; and that tho’ I cou’d give up my Virtue, and expose myself, yet I wou’d not give up my Money, which, tho’ it was true, yet was really too gross for me to acknowledge, and I cou’d not pretend to marry him upon that Principle neither; then as to having him, and make over all my Estate out of his Hands, so as not to give him the Management of what I had, I thought it would be not only a little Gothick and Inhumane, but would be always a Foundation of Unkindness between us, and render us suspected one to another.. (147). From the quotation, Roxana expresses a certain kind of mistrust. Though the Dutch merchant promises not to touch her wealth, she still doesn’t believe him or any of his words. She thinks that conventionally it is “Gothick and Inhumane” to get married.

(26) 26. but not mingle each other’s money, and this will finally lead to their suspicion toward each other and maybe lead her to another tragedy again. At the bottom of her heart, she is somewhat anxious and afraid that she might end up in a tragic situation again in case the Dutch merchant eats his words and claims her money after their marriage. As far as Roxana is concerned, money is like her life, so she has to keep it out of others’ hands — even her husband should not be able to touch it. Determined to protect her fortune from any possible deprivation, she decides to reject the Dutch merchant’s proposal regardless of what reason he gives. Roxana’s over-emphasis on money is stated in the following lines: “[T]he divesting myself of my Estate, and putting my Money out of my Hand, was the Sum of the Matter, that made me refuse to marry” (147). This money-anxiety is her secret, the main reason of her refusing marriage. To conceal the secret well, she decides not to acknowledge this to the Dutch merchant but to make up many other reasons to reject him. She construes: “I was oblig’d to give a new Turn to it, and talk upon a kind of an elevated Strain, which really was not in my Thoughts at first, at-all” (147). Though she gives some excuses other than the real reason, however, it is noteworthy for readers that the excuses she presents are Defoe’s designation of the difficulties and inequality a married woman encounters. The first reason Roxana makes up is that she has a different idea about marriage: I told him, I had, perhaps, differing Notions of Matrimony, from what the receiv’d Custom had given us of it; that I thought a Woman was a free Agent, as well as a Man, and was born free, and cou’d she manage herself suitably, might enjoy that Liberty to as much Purpose as the Men do; that the Laws of Matrimony were indeed, otherwise, and mankind at this time, acted quite upon other Principles; and those such,.

(27) 27. that a Woman gave herself entirely away from herself, in Marriage, and capitulated only to be, at best, but an Upper-Servant, and from the time she took the Man, she was no better or worse than the Servant among the Israilites, who had his Ears bor’d, that is, nail’d to the Door-Post; who by that Act, gave himself up to be a Servant during Life. (148) She continues: That the very Nature of the Marriage-Contract was, in short, nothing but giving up Liberty, Estate, Authority, and every-thing, to the Man, and the Woman was indeed, a meer Woman ever after, that is to say, a Slave.. (148). Roxana indicates the confinement of a married woman compared to an unmarried woman. The unmarried woman is a “free agent,” but a married one is an “upper-servant” with nothing. After all, the laws of matrimony are those of “mankind,” which deprive a woman of her things when she becomes a wife to a man. Looking back on the history of marriage, women are indeed not on the favored side. A wife has to give birth to children, nurse them, educate them, but these children belong to her husband’s family, not hers. Besides, she has to do much housework — cooking, laundry, sewing, gardening, etc. In addition, she also has to work outside to earn additional income once the family suffers from an economic crisis which the husband cannot turn around. While a man only works as a money-earner, a woman plays more roles than he does: she has to be a mother, an educator, a house-keeper, and a sexual server. Even she is over-burdened with many tasks, what is unfair is that she does so much but gains little — her husband may well take all this for granted. Some critics have noticed the unfairness to a married woman too. Carolyn D. Williams mentions the inhumanity in a married woman. It seems that a married.

(28) 28. woman gives up both her money and her self to a man. She makes an example of Pope’s “Epistle to a Lady” (1735) to prove female identity as a very scarce commodity: Nothing so true as what you once let fall, ‘Most Women have no Character at all’. Matter too soft a lasting mark to bear, And best distinguish’d by black, brown, or fair.. (II. 1-4). In the four lines, women are defined as goods, classified according to their appearances.. Williams comments: “Although Pope might not have a high opinion of. women in general, he was well aware of the inhumanity which could arise from a woman’s loss of self- determination in marriage” (103). Mona Scheuermann says about the unfairness toward a married woman too: In brief, a woman’s legal rights over her own property depended on her marital status. While an unmarried [and not betrothed] or widowed woman had control of her property and of her money, the married woman had virtually no such rights.. (Her Bread to Earn 9). To Scheuermann, a single woman keeps the full rights over all she has, while a married one loses these rights and gives away all her things to her husband. She continues: “[T]he married woman essentially is subsumed into her husband. Specifically, she virtually loses her right to own and control property” (46). Because matrimony is defined in terms of male views and interests, under the patriarchy a married woman is put in “a State of Inferiority, if not of Bondage” (Roxana 171). David Blewett, in his introduction to Roxana, pities a married woman’s situation too: An unmarried woman who had come of age enjoyed essentially the same legal rights as a man, that is, the right to own and dispose of property, to make contracts, and to enter into litigation. When she.

(29) 29. married, however, she lost these rights, since at law she became one person [my italics] with her husband, 4 in whom the legal existence of the couple was solely vested.. (14). In Roxana’s eye, marriage is a system that forbids a woman any possessions, just like a beast that devours all she has. By means of Roxana’s narration, Defoe states to readers the unfairness marriage brings for women. After hearing Roxana’s reason of fearing to give up all her possessions, the Dutch merchant rebuts her idea by giving an account of the benefits a married woman should get: He reply’d…that the Man had all the Care of things devolv’d upon him; that the Weight of Business lay upon his Shoulders, and as he had the Trust, so he had the Toil of Life upon him, his was the Labour, his the Anxiety of Living; that the Woman had nothing to do, but to eat the Fat, and drink the Sweet; to sit still, and look round her, be waited on, and made much of; be serv’d, and lov’d, and made easie.. (Roxana 148). He contends that things are not what Roxana says. A married woman does not lose much; instead, she is loved, served, harbored from hunger and want. “[T]he labour of the Man was appointed to make the Woman live quiet and unconcern’d in the World…the Women had only the Care of managing, that is, spending what their Husbands get”; “they [women] generally commanded not the Men only, but all they had; manag’d all for themselves.” In the Dutch merchant’s opinion, though it seems that a married woman loses her rights over her possessions, in fact she takes control over her husband and all his things. Hearing the arguments of the Dutch merchant, Roxana is not persuaded, for her former marriage was nothing like this ideal mutuality: her husband was a “fool,” and she controls nothing of him. He was not weighed down by his business, nor did he.

(30) 30. labor to make his wife a happy life. As to Roxana, she had no fat to eat, no pleasure to take, let alone to command her husband. What the merchant says may be true to other women, but not to Roxana. Roxana then puts forward her argument of seeking equality with men. But, in the context of the novel, this argument does not ring true to Roxana’s very practical attitude toward marriage, and it is something of an excuse for her not to reveal her abiding concern with money. She thinks that now that she does not need a man to provide for her, she should have the right to compete with men: I return’d, that while a Woman was single, she was a Masculine in her politick Capacity; that she had then the full Command of what she had, and the full Direction of what she did; that she was a Man in her separated Capacity, to all Intents and Purposes that a Man cou’d be so to himself; that she was controul’d by none, and was in Subjection to none.. (149). She contends that concerning capability, a single woman is not less capable than a man: “[A] Woman was as fit to govern and enjoy her own Estate, without a Man, as a Man was, without a Woman; and that, if she had a-mind to gratifie herself as to Sexes, she might entertain a Man, as a Man does a Mistress.(149)” Scheuermann says that Defoe “as too often, presents the most positive view of all male- female relationships of absolute equality” (Her Bread to Earn 5). Defoe is positive of women’s brilliance in every way, and he is sure that without any cultural confinement a woman is equal to a man. Take Roxana for example. Under Defoe’s pen, she is molded into a successful character. She makes a fortune, runs her estate, manages her investment and lives an extravagant life. Being gifted and smart, she learns quickly. Within a short time, she learns dancing, singing, managing her business, and even many languages. Roxana is an emblem of a successful female in.

(31) 31. the eighteenth century — wise, active, energetic, capable and good at making money. Sexually, Defoe even wants to assert a single woman’s self- identity by Roxana’s desire to please a man like a man pleases a woman. Though this sexual equality is sometimes attacked by moralists, Defoe’s idea of seeking equality between women and men is clear. However, this equality of women with men is still an ideal because it can only be fulfilled by single women. After all, a woman, once married, should lose freedom and get confined, so seeking equality becomes a dream to her. Not to lose the right to pursue equality, Roxana decides to exclude marriage and remain single for all her life. In order to keep her freedom, marriage is out of the question: [I]t was my Misfortune to be a Woman, but I was resolv’d it shou’d not be made worse by the Sex; and seeing Liberty seem’d to be the Men’s Property, I wou’d be a Man-Woman; for as I was born free, I wou’d die so.. (171). Roxana’s attitude against marriage and her contention for remaining single are so strong that the Dutch merchant is hard to rebut her reasons. All he can do is explain the essence of nature in marriage, saying that marriage is: the ordinary Method that the World was guided by; that he had Reason to expect I [Roxana] shou’d be content with that which all the World was contented with; that he was of the Opinion that a sincere Affection between a Man and his Wife, answer’d all the Objections that I had made about the being a Slave, a Servant, and the like; and where there was a mutual Love, there cou’d be no Bondage; but that there was but on Interest; one Aim; one Design; and all conspir’d to make both very happy.. (149). Furthermore, he comes to a serious part, thinking that “Marriage was decreed by Heaven; that it was the fix’d State of Life, which God had appointed for Man’s felicity,.

(32) 32. and for establishing a legal Posterity” (151). The Dutch merchant now tries to persuade Roxana with the indispensability of marriage in terms of religion. But Roxana does not believe in the “mutual love” and the “decree from heaven” at all. To protect her money, she still obstinately objects: Ay, said I, that is the Thing I complain of; the Pretence of Affection, takes from a Woman everything that can be call’d herself; she is to have no Interest; no Aim; no View; but all is the Interest, Aim, and View, of the Husband…she is to lead a Life of perfect Indolence, and living by Faith (not in God, but) in her Huband, she sinks or swims, as he is either Fool or wise Man; unhappy or prosperous; and in the middle of what she thinks is her Happiness and Prosperity, she is ingulph’d in Misery and Beggary, which she had not the least Notice, Knowledge, or Suspicion.. (149). She owes the law of marriage to men rather than to God and expresses the danger a married woman may risk. The experience of unhappy marriage has made her disbelieve in patriarchal laws. In Roxana’s view, a woman may beget misery and beg any time, for as soon as the husband goes bankrupt, the wife is “surpriz’d with a Disaster…stripp’d to the Cloaths on her Back…turn’d into the Street” (150). Confronting the Dutch merchant’s proposal, she says, “He [the Dutch merchant] did not know how feelingly I spoke this, and what Extremities I had gone thro’ of this Kind; how near I was to the very last Article above, viz. crying myself to Death; and how I really starv’d for almost two Years together. (150)” As to the “mutual love” or “decree from heaven,” they are belittled when compared with money, which is the most important factor to keep life going on. She insists that “whoever the Woman was, that had an Estate, and would give up to be the Slave of a Great Man, that Woman was a Fool,” and that “to take the Man…is the most preposterous thing in.

(33) 33. Nature” (152). To convince Roxana, the Dutch merchant makes a simile that their fortune is a boat, and she should be the pilot to steer it. He agrees that if they get married, he would let Roxana manage all the money — both hers and his. But Roxana just doesn’t believe in this handover of power, replying: [B]ut you can take the Helm out of my Hand when you please, and bid me go spin: It is not you…that I suspect, but the Laws of Matrimony puts the Power into your Hands; bids you do it; commands you to command; and binds me, forsooth, to obey.. (151). This time, Roxana turns to complain about the laws of matrimony. She thinks that the laws are too hard and too strict on a married woman. After all, the rules are masculine and patriarchal, and their definitions are given through men’s view. The laws of matrimony always put power in men’s hands, bid them to control women, to command them and to bind them. Even if a woman has rights to control her fortune, these rights can be taken away by a man any time when he desires for the rights. Surrendering to the laws, a married woman is still on the disfavored side. In terms of feminism, marriage laws for a woman are severer than those for a man. Henry Fielding (1707-1754) attacked the injustice of English marriage law in the Champion: As to their [the laws’s] women COVERED, the Law seems to consider them as Women buried: Indeed they have no Reason to rejoice in its Lenity; for, besides stripping them of their Entity, it likewise puts it in the Power of their husbands to strip them of all they have. 5 In this quotation, Fielding speaks for women, pointing out the injustice the laws do to women. Facing the laws, women are defined as the inferior gender, who have to give away their fortune or to be stripped of both their possessions and status simply to.

(34) 34. become subordinate to their husbands, while nothing will be given in return. Roxana is such a victim under marriage laws. When her irresponsible husband leaves, their marriage in fact no longer exists between them. However, the marriage laws still enforce their marriage contract to be effective, regardless of the fact that their marriage has already been meaningless. It is quite ironic that Roxana’s marriage without mutual love, without a husband, without economic support, even without children should still exist and put confinement on her. In the article on Roxana, Janet E. Aikins also points out Defoe’s sympathy to women in this aspect. She says that in Defoe’s Good Advice to the Ladies (1702), he insists that “the Case of the Women in England is truly Deplorable, and there is scarce a good Husband now to twenty that merited that Name [husband] in former Times” (qtd. in Aikins 533). 6 No wonder when Amy learns from her ex- lover that Roxana’s husband has died in the army, she is quite happy, because the marriage chain on Roxana is finally removed. Amy cannot help feeling over-rejoiced and “congratulated me [Roxana] upon my being now a real Free-Woman” (Roxana 132). Through the lengthy debate with the Dutch merchant over the advantages and disadvantages of marriage on women, Roxana obstinately gives all kinds of reasons to reject the merchant’s proposal. At the very bottom of her heart, her miserable marriage is haunting her like a nightmare, which makes her fearful about marriage and forces her to put extreme emphasis on money. Dianne Osland has made a summary of these reasons Roxana gives in this “impromptu defense.” Roxana argues: (1) that while a woman was born free, matrimony required that she give “herself entirely away from herself”; (2) that “the very Nature of the Marriage-Contract was…nothing but giving up Liberty, Estate, Authority, and every-thing, to the Man, and.

(35) 35. the Woman was indeed, a meer Woman ever after, that is to say, a Slave”; (3) that a single woman was to all intents a man in that “she was controul’d by none, because accountable to none, and was in Subjection to none”; (4) that the “Pretence of Affection” takes from a woman “every thing that can be call’d herself,” since “she is to have no Interest; no Aim; no View; but all is the Interest, Aim, and View, of the Husband,” and she is to sink or swim as he proves fool or wise man; (5) that, even if he is willing to surrender his authority, it amounts to no more than allowing her to steer, “that is, hold the Helm,” while he still conns the ship and can take the helm out of her hands whenever he pleases; and (6) that since the laws of matrimony put all the power into the husband’s hands, what the Dutch Merchant dignifies as “Oneness of Interest, Mutual Affection, and the like, is Curtesie and Kindness then, and a Woman is indeed, infinitely oblig’d where she meets with it; but can’t help herself where it fails”. (384). From Roxana’s defense, she presents a fact that a married woman may encounter some tragedy or poverty if her husband can’t harbor her. Under patriarchy, women are defined as inferior to men and given few resources to live on.. When they get. married, they are bound to be chained, and seeking equality with men is impossible. Though Roxana’s giving these reasons is to protect her wealth from being taken away by the man called a “husband,” these excuses are in fact what Defoe wants to tell his readers about the pitiful situation a married woman may be in. But looking from another angle, while Roxana’s reasons seem to make sense,.

(36) 36. we learn that the Dutch merchant’s rebuttal is not nonsense either. He argues that marriage is to make both man and woman very happy and that their mutual love should lighten both lives, which is an optimistic view. If we disregard Roxana’s personal experience, the Dutch merchant’s words are meaningful enough to be used as a guideline for couples. Compared with the Dutch merchant’s contention, Roxana’s idea of marriage seems to be overly pessimistic. She looks at the dark side of marriage, focusing on the misery a woman may encounter, but little does she think that it is her bad luck to meet a wrong man, and that it is hazard for her to jump to the conclusion that marriage is a terrible thing without any benefits. Defoe is of the same idea as the Dutch merchant. Though he has his heroine assert her marital suffering, he is still said by critics to be an advocate of marriage. In his two works The Family Instructor (1715) and Conjugal Lewdness (1727), 7 Deofe responds to what he sees as social, moral and family issues. Richetti says, “Defoe finds a widespread contempt for marriage” (“The Family, Sex and Marriage” 22), but he doesn’t feel that people should disregard marriage. He continues, “He [Defoe] insists carefully that marriage must begin in affection” (22). After all, a family is the beginning of all social activities; furthermore, “Charity begins at home” (Roxana 22). Defoe has implied his idea of supporting marriage in Roxana’s later mental disturbance.. Though Roxana’s miserable marriage makes her harden her heart. against getting married again, she is still caught in an ambivalent feeling when her beloved Dutch merchant leaves. She is torn between the impact of her first marriage and her love for the Dutch merchant, not knowing what to choose. She says, Then the dreadful Scene of my Life, when I was left with my five Children, as I have related, represented itself again to me, and I sat considering what Measures I might take to bring myself to such a State of Desolation again, and how I shou’d act to avoid it. (Roxana 162).

(37) 37. To avoid any marriage like this, she determines to dispel any chance of getting married with various excuses. But on the other hand, knowing that the Dutch merchant is quite an honorable man, she feels herself such a fool to reject him: If I had not been one of the foolishest, as well as wickedest Creatures upon Earth, I cou’d never have acted thus; I had one of the honestest complestest Gentlemen upon Earth, at my hand; he had in one Sence sav’d my Life…he lov’d me even to Distraction…he had offer’d me Marriage, even after I was with-Child by him, and had offer’d to quit all his Pretensions to my Estate, and give it up to my own Management…Here I might have settled myself out of the reach even of Disaster itself; his Estate and mine, wou’d have purchas’d even then above two Thousand Pounds a Year, and I might have liv’d like a Queen…and which was above all, I had now an Opportunity to have quitted a Life of Crime and Debauchery, which I had been given up to for several Years, and to have sat down quiet in Plenty and Honour, and to have set myself apart to the Great Work, which I have since seen so much Necessity of, and Occasion for; I mean that of Repentance. (158-59) If she considers what the Dutch merchant would offer her and what a life she would be living with him, it seems a good bargain for her to accept the proposal. But the trouble is that she fears the Dutch merchant would in fact lie to her, desert her and push her back to misery again. Caught in the mental disturbance, she just “continued obstinate against Matrimony, and yet…cou’d not bear the Thoughts of his going away neither” (159). Even years after her glorious life in Pall Mall, she still cannot forget about him: “[N]ow my Mind run upon him continually, and the ridiculous Conduct of my refusing him” (214). Her fool husband’s desertion has.

(38) 38. caused so much impact on her that she is caught in a dilemma now — making decisions against marriage and regretting it at the same time. Though her mind is like a pendulum, swinging back and forth between making decisions and repenting, we cannot neglect the power of her vanity that consolidates her stand of refusing marriage. After she experiences the great poverty, she becomes extremely fascinated by wealth, even to an abnormal degree that she practices prostitution. Focusing on the material life, she lets vanity control her all over and plunges herself into making money. If she wants to get married, it must be a marriage that will bring her some glorification, such as luxury, nobility, or royalty. The motive of her marriage changes from love to vanity. In about the final one-third of the novel when Roxana and the Dutch merchant, after undergoing many things, finally decide to get married, something happens and secretly changes Roxana’s mind. She overhears that the prince, her former lover, is looking for her and wanting to marry her. Hearing about this, she is very rejoiced because it is possible for her to become a princess: But in an evil Hour, just now came Amy’s Letter…and the fine things she had said about the Prince, began to make strange Work with me; the Notion of being a Princess …the Thoughts of being surrounded with Domesticks; honour’d with Titles; but call’d HER HIGHNESS; and live in all the Splendor of a Court; and, which was still more, in the Arms of a Man of such Rank, and who I knew lov’d and valued me; all this, in a word, dazzl’d my Eyes; turn’d my Head.. (234). Thinking about the honor of the rank, she tries to get rid of the Dutch merchant: “When my Gentleman came to me the next time, I had no Notion of him” (234). In addition, she began to study “in what Manner to put off this Gentleman, and be-rid of him for-ever” (234). Though she sometimes thinks of the goodness the gentleman.

(39) 39. gives her and how he saves her life from the wicked Jew, however, “the Title of Highness, and of a Princess, and all those fine things, as they came in, weigh’d down all this; and the Sence of Gratitude vanish’d, as if it had been a Shadow” (235). From this, Roxana tells her readers she could consent to get married, but it must be a marriage that makes her wealthier and glorified. Richetti warns that a marriage derived from desire instead of mutual love is soon to fail: “Those who marry out of desire soon arrive at satiety and eventually disgust” (“The Family, Sex, and Marriage” 22). In Defoe’s Conjugal Lewdness, there is also a warning like this: [W]hen the corrupted Gust is satiated, when the first Heats are over, and Souls begin to converse together, then they [the couple] begin to Repent and Repine, they see an End of their Happiness just where other People find the Beginning of theirs. 8. (qtd. in Richetti “The. Family, Sex, and Marriage” 22) In brief, the va nity in marriage is as harmful as the rust that would eat away iron. Roxana has a wrong purpose in marriage now, and this is bound to lead her to tragedy. The Dutch merchant has foretold Roxana’s ruin in his letter to her when he leaves her: [H]e said, but the Cruelty of refusing him, which he own’d he cou’d not forgive me so heartily as he shou’d do, because he was satisfied it was an Injury to myself; would be an Introduction to my Ruin [my italics]; and that I wou’d seriously repent of it; he foretold some fatal things, which, he said, he was well assur’d I shou’d fall into; and that, at last I wou’d be ruin’d by a bad Husband; bid me be the more wary, that I might render him a False Prophet; but to remember, that if ever I came into Distress, I had a fast-Friend at Paris …. (Roxana 160). His words stunned Roxana. Blewett says, “Her perversity in rejecting the Dutch.

(40) 40. merchant and his reasons for marriage are what will make Roxana’s fall inevitable” (17). We see the change of Roxana’s attitude toward marriage as we read along — she changes from a passive victim to an active controller. At first, she is a pitiful woman who is scared by marriage contract and tries every means to escape it. She suffers from the marriage system and is sacrificed by an unfortuna te encounter with a wrong man. However, with her getting independence and becoming wealthy, she begins to take control over marriage and tries to take advantage of it. She picks ideal mates to marry, aiming at the fame and wealth these ideal husbands may bring about. Marriage becomes an access to fortune, not the conventional idea of “heavenly creed” to Roxana. Because her heart is disturbed by vanity, and because she doesn’t respect this heavenly bond enough, Roxana finally falls into misery and lives a horrible life after she gets married to the Dutch merchant..