Table Of ContentTHE
RELUCTANT-
~
PILGRIM
Defoe's Emblematic Method
and Quest for Fori;n .
in ·Robinson Crusoe, ·
J. PAUL HUNTER
The Johns Hopkins Press
Baltimore
J
y
I
'1
.. tI .
':k
.r.
q
1 ·
r
Preface
Despite the plethora of old and new '1iistories" of the
novel, th~ flowering of prose fiction in the eighteenth
century remains something of a historical puzzle. We
seldom doubt the ultimate interest and value of the early
novel, but its peculiar shape and unexplained "develop- .
ment" induce a chronic discomfort. The critical revolu
tion that has; since World War II,' reinterpreted most
major Augustan works has barely touched the novelists
(with a few exceptions 1 arid has forced- the lines of
)
literary history to be redrawn around the entire ge:rireo f
prose fiction. In short, as the Augustan poetic has been
''~, k reassessed, the novel has been almost completely left out
'
of account.
I I But if we have suffered a critical lag in the studrof ·
prose fiction, it is less because of self-satisfaction than
1
frustration. Laments are persistently heard about the
1:
'' state of our knowledge of the historical contexts of prose
I
:fiction, and about our failure to read the text:; with the
,,,,•
same critical sophistication we bring to, say, Pope; for it
. 1 The recent publication of three Fielding studies promises a dialectic
that might well bring revised estimates of more writers. than just Field
ing: see Martin Battestin, The Moral Basis of Fielding's Art ( Middle
-town, Conn., 1959); Sheldon Sachs, Fiction and the Shape of Belief
(Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1964); Andrew Wright, Henry Fielding:
Mask and Feast (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1965). '
.
' '
vii.
viii PREFACE PREFACE ix
is not so much that we have confidence in the old gen clusions and those arrived at by- students of other
eralizations as that we are uncertain about procedures to eighteenth-century literary forms.
form new ones. For one thing, the novelists seem so com Much of the problem, it seems to me, derives from an
paratively "si:r~ple" ( a comment earlier generations liked implicit assumption about what a novel, or rather the
( to make about Dryden, Pope, and Swift), and we never novel, is. The metaphors commonly used to describe the
quite know how to talk critically about their work with early novel are very revealing. Critics speak of the
out seeming either truistic, on the one hand, or overly "growth" of the novel, its "rise" and "development"; or
ingenious, on the other. For another thing, eighteenth they talk of the "family" of novelists, calling Defoe ( or
century prose fiction bewilders our notions about what a Richardson) the "father" of the form. Such terms barely
novel is, for its authors are notoriously misleading ( or disguise the assumption that the novel is organic, mov
sometimes silent) about thei:r intentions, and critics ing more or less predictably toward a realization of per-•
to
I attempting reconcile Defoe or Fielding or Sterne with feet form. Whether or not Aristotle is correct in describ
,'I J
!lj Flaubertian or amesian theory have had to settle for un ing the history of tragedy in this way, prose fiction
1'
wieldy comparisons and terms that finally prove in moved too variously for such a definition to apply. We
appropriate. Then, too, treating long novels in the same need, I think, less emphasis on similarities produced by
,;I
manner as short poems requires a rather considerable the "English tradition" and more attention to the very
I
devotion to the premise that the author and work are, substantial differences in, the major early· English novel
ultimately, worth it, for several scores of lifetimes would ists; we need a rather f:ull reassessment of the various
be needed to give prose fiction the contextual solidity directions which prose fiqtion took in the hands of its
that we are now approaching for Pope. The condescen early masters. And once we know more exactly what
sion bestowed on eighteenth-century novelists by, on the each individual writer Wl;l.S intending and accomplishing, "
one hand, Augustan critics, and, on the other, by students we will then be able to define more fully the types of
of the later novel suggests something less than the total prose fiction and their relation to each other.
devotion needed to undertake the task. This study grew out of a desire to contribute to such a
The difficulty of approaching fiction anew is illus reassessment. I chose Defoe as my subject because I
trated by Ian Watt's The Rise of the Novel, perhaps the found his conscious artistry,seriously maligned and be
most impressive and influential such study of the last cause I found in his work qualities not usually thought
decade. ·Despite his fresh reading of individual authors to exist in early eighteenth-century fiction. Robinson
and his often acute perceptions ~bout specific tech Crusoe became the special focus of this book because I
niques, Professor Watt manages to challenge received thought it to be deRned and described inaccurately both
i ii,
! ·1 opinion surprisingly little, and his total study of relation by historians of fiction and by critiqs of Defoe and be
i' ships between authors affirms, rather than revises, the, cause I thought it not only the most undervalued, but
usual estimates of how fiction "develops." We could, of ultimately the most important, of Defoe's works.2 Exten- ,
course, simply take comfort from such conclusions, but
• By Robinson Crusoe, I mean only Part I-The Life and Stran~e
disquieting discrepancies remain betwe@n these con- Surprising Advent!fres of Robinson Crrsoe of York Mariner. The 'two
x. PRE;FACE PREFA GE xi
sive research has confirmed my conclusion and clarified to minimize previous insights. But it seems to me that
my reservations about traditional readings of Robinson the traditional approaches have not suggested· the .full
Crusoe in particular and of Defoe in general. Now I am range and complexity of what happens in-Robinson Crti
persuaded too that the artistic techniques in Robinson . . sbe, ·n or have 'they defined adequately the artistic ted:i~
Crusoe demand that we re-evaluate Defoe's contribution nique which Defoe develops from Puritan thought pat
to prose fiction and that we raise new, more sophisti terns ap.d a richisubliterary context.
cated questions about the relationship between the cul Time has dealt rather more capriciously with Defoe
,twal "mind" behind particular writers and the literary than with many of his contemporaries. Once, Robinson
forms that they produced.. Crusoe was· regarded as his masterpiE;Jce, and. even
Traditionally, the power of Robinson Crusoe has b.een his enemies admitted its excellence.6 But nineteenth
expl~Jned in· three basic. w.llys. O~f n:iethod d.escri?e,~i ts century scholars discovered unsavory facts about Defoe's
· appeal. as that of "realism" and eIIfphasiz~s Defoe s cir life, and his image as a pious and zealous reformer, niis
cutp.stantial method" of making fiction seem like ,~act.3 . ·A used by his own generation, was rapidly redrawn into
11 second, emphasizing the adventure plot and the typical that of an unscrupulous hack. Recent years have raised
~nglishman" aspects of the hero, locates .t :he book's ap to prominence works formerly ignored-Moll· Flanders
peal in the psychology of readers who, removed ·from and Roxana, for example-and critics have suggested
eleme11,talp hysical struggles for survival, wish to iden that Defoe was a writer whose real interests were differ
tify with tl}ose so yfigaged.4 A third consid.ers1the story ent frorri his exP.ressedo. nes.
in tertns of politic;al economy, sedng its value either in The paradoxes of Defoe the man-not to mention the
the' social ideals of a "natural" civilization or in the> oretical questions...:._havep revented ·me from taking De-
novel's representation' of the rise of new economic icl.eals II . foe's own assertions at face value, but I have allowed
I
· and a new economic class.5 Each approach has illumi those assertions to point me toward contexts where rele- ··
nated. important aspects of Defoe' s art, and in proposing vant questions may be rai~ed; finally, I have been led to
· a different vers~on of Defoe's artistic power I do not wish conclusions· about Defoe's art which are independent of
his own ·articulation; perhaps. even independent, in one
sequels Farther Adventures and Serious Reflections, were published sense, of his "choice," for finally I have tried to approach
later a~d seem, like 1 He,nry IV and 2 Henry IV, to have been separately t:he,question of how and why the materials that go into
conceived. ' ana rtist's ~'mind" push him toward a sp~cific form. The
3 Standard histories of the novel (Baker, McKillop, Wagenknecht,
Stevenson) discuss Defo!:!l.a· rgely in these terms. . . ,, oretical interests have thus ultimately become the moti
• See, e.g., Louis Krpnenberger, "Defoe: The Great_M atenahst, SRL,
vating force behind this study, but I have tried not to. let
September 30, 1939, pp. 3, 4, 17; W. P. Trent, Dqniel Defoe: How To .
.
Know Him (Indianapolis, Ind., 1916). , .
• For various uses of this reading, see Rousseau s "£mile; Ian. Watt, : "According to Joseph Spence, Pope called Robinso,n Crusoe "excel
The Rise of the Novel (London, 1957); and s~ch Marxist studies as that ient'\(Ariecdotes, Observations, and Characfers .Qf Books and Men [2d
of Brian Fitzgerald ( Daniel Defoe: A:S tudy in Conflict [London, 1954]) ed.; London, 1858], p. 196). Samuel Johnson safd.Robinson Crusoe was
or Ralph Fox ( The Novel and the People [New York, 1945], esp. p. one of only three books "written by mere man that w:is wished .longer
236). Watt's reading of Crusoe as homo economicus has been especially by its readers" ( Joseph Epes Brown, fhe Critical Opinions of Samuel
influential, though recently this view has come under severe attack. Johnson [Princeton, 1926], p. 305). · .
xii PREFACE PREFACE xiii
,rp.y, attention to specifics be subordinated to these inter teenth century in a historical perspective and suggests
ests. I have had three simultaneous aims: to offer a how, and why, Puritan subliterary traditions look to
detailed critical reading of Robinson Crusoe; to define ward the symbolic· novel, making it possible for an
and describe several kinds of Puritan subliterary materi emblematic way of perceiving the world to be trans
als; and to suggest the relationship between characteris formed into a literary style. In Chapters VI, VII, and
tic Puritan ways of thinking in the seventeenth century VIII, I attempt to define Defoe' s technique by offering a
ancl the new prose :fictiono f the eighteenth. detailed reading of Robinson Crusoe. In an 'Afterword I
Much of the old view of Defoe stems from assump have offered so~e tentative suggestions about how the
,, tions about Defoe as a man and as a journalist who acci ideas I express here affect other novels and novelists. If
dentally began to write :fiction. In recent months there there is a certain audacity here in my unorthodox
have been important indications that Defoe's artistry is delineation of types of novels in the eighteenth 'Century,
being taken more seriously.7 As my part of the exorcism I hope it will stimulate others to a more helpful retracing ,
of the old view, I have raised, in Chapter I, questions of_t he history of prose :fictiont han we yet have available.,
about the assumptions and conclusions traditionally held Just as this book was completed, Princeton Uni
about the events which lie behind Robinson Crusoe. versity Press issued G. A. Starr's admirable Defoe and
Chapters II, III, and IV define and describe several Puri Spiritual Autobiography. Professor Starr and I both re
tan subliterary traditions which seem to me relevant to gard Defoe's religious background .as enormously impor
the, mind and imagination that produced Robinson tant, and both of us offe r readings of Defoe in terms of
Crusoe. Some may find these chapters overly precise and this background. We are not, of course, the first to sug
my attention to detail tedious here, but those who regard gest that Robinson Crusoe is ultimately about man's spir
works of art as cultural objects whose form is insepara itual development,8 but no one has considered the back- ·
ble from the cultural mind which produced them will, I ground as fully as we have. Professor Starr, however,
think, find much here to support late):'t heoretical sugges traces Defoe's obligation to autobiography and is more
tions. Chapter V places the Puritan mind of the seven- concerned with the standard rhythm of conversion than
with the literary background as such; he declines to char
• Two books by MaximiUian Novak (Economics and the Fiction of acterize the background of Defoe's art as distinctively
Daniel Defoe ["University, of California English Studies/' No. 24;
Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1962], hereafter cited as EF, and Defoe and
the Nature of Man [London, 1963]) have corrected a number of false • James Sutherland (Defoe [London, 1937]) and Sri C. Sen (Daniel
assumptions about Defoe and have laid the groundwork for more ade Defoe, ,His Mind and Art [Calcutta, 1948]) take the religious element
quate interpretation. See als0 his "Robinson Crusoe and Economic in Robinson Crusoe seriously; there have been· several important studies
Utor,ia" (KR, XXV [1963], 474-90), and his "Defoe's Theory of Fic of the subject: James Moffatt, "The Religion of Robinson Crusoe"
tion' (SP, LXI [1964], 650-68), as well as the, following essays by (Contemporary Review, CXV [1919], 664-69); J. Harry Smith, "The
other hands: Robert R. Columbus, "Conscious Artistry in Moll Flanders" Theology of Robinson Crusoe" (Balhorn. Review, n.s., XVI [1925], 37-
(SEL, III [1963], 415-32); Howard L. Koonce, "Moll's Muddle: Defoe's 47); Roger Lloyd, "The Riddle :of Defoe: Impact of the EvangeHcal
Use of Irony in MoUFlanders" (ELH, XXX [1963], 377-94); and Wil Challehge" ( Church Times, July 16, ,1954, p. 654); E. M. W. Tillyard,
liam H. Halewood, "Religion and Invention in Robinson Crusoe" ( EIC, The Epic Strain in the English Novel (Fairlawn, N.J., ,1958, pp. 2~
XIV [1964], 339-51 ). 50); and WHliam Halewood's study, mentioned above (n. 7).
xiv PREJ;i'ACE
Puritan, and his major attention is to the first third of
Robinson Crusoe.9 My concern with fiction's quest for
form, on the other hand, has led me to consider types of
public literature which relate to Christian concern with
conversion and ethical conduct but which ( it seems to·
me) can be carefully distinguished from one another on Contents
the basis of distinctive aims and techniques and which
lead us to· important conclusions about the· riature of
Puritan art. I have been more concerned, too, to show
how the tradition articulates itself in a con.scious artistic
technique, controlling the entire form, of Robinson Cru
soe.· Professor Starr's argument about Defoe's intention Preface vii
.reinforces my conception of the theme of Robinson
Acknowledgments ............................ xvii
Crusoe, though our differing interests and methods have · ·
led to quite different emphases and, ultimately, to very
A Note on Texts ...... _.. ................ · ....... xix
different conGeptions about the relationship of intellec
tual background to fictive form.
1. The "Occasion" of Robinson Crusoe . . . . . . . . . . 1
October, 1965 r2.r T he "Guide" Tradition ..................... .
Riverside, California
The "Providence" Tradition ................. .
~ -w,J
4. Spiritual Biog;aphy 76 \....--·
"5. Metaphor, Type, Emblem, and the Pilgrim
.---_. _ "Allegorcy" .... : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 /
6. Robinson Crusoe's Rebellion and Punishment .. 125
7. Repentance ...... '. ....................... 148
"My reservations about his neglect of the Puritan "mind" is implicit 8. Deliverance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................ 168
in Chapters II through IV and is cruci::tl to my conclusions in Chapter V .. l i
Professor Starr also deals with Moll Flanders and Rofana; he mentions
post-conversion changes in C1:usoe, but his strategy does not permit him An Afterword ~ ................................. 202 \
to give close attention to the many significant problems which follow
Crusoe's conversion and which raise important artistic questions. His
Index ............................... : ....... ,213
term "autobiography" evidently comprehends many literary forms.
I!
, I
I
The "Occasion" of
Robinson- Crusoe
I
; I
I
I,
Interpretive problems in eighteenth-century fiction re- .
suit not so much from a lack of historical interest and
knowledge as from a disguised antihistoricism in apply
ing known facts, for it is often tempting to use history
rather than surrender to it. Defoe study has, I think,
more often settled for the illusion of history than for a
full, rigorous, and sensitive examination of, the assumed
contexts of a particular, work Old generalizations have
often seemed more valid than they really are because a
\ fa9ade of fact has obscured a :Hawedf oundation of logic.
,I Such methodology has determined the greater part of
Robinson Crusoe scholarship, and I wish to examine
some of the assumptions of this methodology before
arguing another series of contexts which, it se,ems to me,
are more relevant to Robinson Crusoe and to the emer
gence of the novel as a form .
. Knowledge of Defoe' s political journalism has opened
- some important windows to his art, but misuse of this
/,
knowledge has also led to some serious misconceptions.
One ~uch set of misconceptions involves the ''occasion"
of Robinson Crusoe, fon Defoe students ( working upon
assumptions about Defoe's journalistic methods) have
reconstructed on the basis of . conjecture the events
which inspired Robinson Crusoe and also those which
effected its ultimate form. Alexander Selkirk's four-year
1
2 THE RELUCTANT PILGRIM THE "OCCASION" OF ROBINSON CRUSOE 3
sojourn on the desolate island of Juan Fernandez is thus Selkirk was only the most recent of several persons who
usually considered to be the direct inspiration for Robin had endured long isolation in remote places. Many other,
son Crusoe; 1 and travel books ( such as those by Ed "miraculous preservations" were recorded during the
ward Cooke and Woodes Rogers, which give accounts of late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries, and
Selkirk's story) are regarded as formative influences on Defoe probably knew as much about some of them as he
Defoe' s art. This account of Defoe' s procedure dates did about Selkirk. For example, two. other men before
from a generation ago, but because neither its conclu Selkirk had been stranded at separate times on Juan
sions nor assumptions have been seriously questioned Fernandez, one of them for five years.5 Another casta
the received opinion is still that articulated by Ernest A. way, Ephraim How, for nearly a year was supposed dead
Baker in 1929: "The original incentive to write Robinson before he was found alone upon a "rocky desolate Is
Crusoe and the central idea of a man left by himself on a land," where he and two companions had been cast in a
desert island . . . came to Defoe from the actual ex storm. After his companions died, he had survived by
periences of Alexander Selkirk:.". The novel must ''be con using materials washed ashore from the shipwreck. 6 A f\
sidered as [a] :fictitious narrative of travel." 2 This fourth castaway, stranded n~ar Scotland in 1616, had w
acco.unt of Defoe's design· and procedure is, I think, become so notable an exemplum that eighteenth-century
inadequate and inaccurate; and it seriously misleads us writers still repeated his story.7 A fifth spent two years
as to the rich and complex traditions which nourish Rob alone on an island near the Isle of Providence after nine
inson Crusoe-and which influence the form of an of his companions perished either on the island or
emerging genre. in trying to swim to civilization. 8 A sixth, Anthony
Thatcher, stranded with his wife in ~6.35 after a ship-
The Selkirk conjecture dates from the middle of the in a periodical ( The Englishman, December 1-3, 1713) and a sepa
eighteenth century and probably originated from rumors rately issued tract ( Providence Displayed [London, 1712] ) . But Baker
probl!bly exaggerates in calling the incident "the great sensation of
during Defoe's own lifetime.3 Selkirk's adventure was, of 1712-1713" (History, III, 148; italics mine).
course, well known to Defoe's contemporaries,4 but • See Woodes ,Rogers, A Cruising Voyage Round the World (London,
1712), pp. 129.:..30.
1 Arthur W. Secord's assumption is typical: 1 "Selkirk undoubtedly • S~e Increase Mather, An Essay for the Recording of Illustrious
furnished Defoe with the central theme. of the stqry,-,-a fact upon Providences (Boston, 1684), pp. 58~64; and William Turner, A
which too much emphasis cannot be laid and which I shall assume as ' Compleat History of the Most Rema1*(1,bleP rovidences, Both of Judg
fundamental" (Studies in the Narrative Method of Defoe ["University ment and Mercy, Which Have Hapned in This Present Age ( London,
of Illinois Studies in Language and Literature," IX; Urbana, 1924], <' I 1697), p. 110. ·
I
p. 31). ,,:: · • See James Janeway, Token for Mariners, Containing Many Famous
2 The History of the English Novel ( 10 vols.; London, 1929-39), a_ndW onde:ful lnst~nces of God'.s Providence in Sea Dangers and De
III, 147:-48, 150. lzveran~es, in Mercifully Preserving the Lives of His Poor Creatures,
3 Late in the eighteenth century, James Beattie relates, as "the ac When in Humane Probability, at the Point of Perishing by Shipwreck
count commonly given," an anecdote about Defoe's taking advanta·ge Famine, or Other Accidents (London, 1708), pp. 31-33. Janeway re:
of Selkirk after. hearing. Selkirk tell his story personally ( Dissertations tells the story from Adam Olearius, The Voyages and Travels of the
Moral and Critical [London, .1783], p. 565). Another rumor ,during Ambassadors, trans. John Davies (London; 1662). For a discussion of
Defoe's lifetime insisted that Robinson Crusoe was really written by the '~ 'Ja~eway, Mather, Turner, and similar -books, see Chapter III belo\Y,
Earl of Oxford. t, ~ See, Increase Mather, Essay, p. 71, and Turner, Remarkable Provi
• Ac9ounts o.f it were published not only in standard travel books but dences, p. 110.
.,
4 THE RELUCTANT PILGRIM THE "OCCASION" OF ROBINSON CRUSOE 5
wreck had killed their fellow voyagers, survived by using The assumption that Defoe' s writings all stem from
clothing and debris from the wreck, much as Crusoe current happenings ignores an important distinction
does.9 Many castaways, in fact, underwent hardships about artistic aim. An event often stimulated Defoe to )
much like Crusoe's, reacted to them much as he does, produce a political tract, for his function as a news analyst
and recounted their experiences in a similarly detailed for the Whigs and/or Tories often demanded that he in
way.:w terpret the current scene so as to influence the English
Any of these castaways might have provided some in-. public. But in other kinds of writing Defoe may well have
spiration for Defoe, but, laying aside for a moment the worked differently. In The Family Instructor, for exam
issue of .Oefoe's possible indebtedness for facts or inci ple, and in his other clearly moralistic works, he seems to
dents, one may question whether any castaway event begin with an· ideological aim and to accumulate events
provided the major impulse for the creation of Robinson ( factual or fictional) as examples to support his ideol
Crusoe. Selkirk's adventure is closer in time to the publi ogy. The antithetical procedures of the journalist and.
cation of Robinson Crusoe than are the other adventures I moralist are only two of many authorial procedures in
have cited, but almost seven years s!c)pa:rateth e publica which Defoe may have engaged, for living by his pen
tion of Robinson Crusoe from the publication of ac cast him in a variety of roles. And to see what sort of role
counts of Selkirk. Because the Selkirk conjecture rests he assumed in writing Robinson Crusoe, one needs to
primarily on the assumptidn that Defoe usually "capi determine what kind of book it is, for his procedures are
talized" on current news events, this seven-year delay much more likely to have been dictated py his aim in an,
would seem crucial. Pope and Horace may have thought individual work than by a standard scheme or method
a seven-year waiting period advisable, but no journalist applied indiscriminately to .h is more than five hundred
would agree.11 publications,12
9 See Mather, Essay, p. 13. · '
The assumptions which, when pursued in one direc-
10 See, for example, Janeway, Token for Mariners, Mather, Essay, or
Turner, Remarkable Providences.
11 John Robert \Moore's doubts about the Selkirk conjecture on first·
glance seem to represent an advance over received opinion, but al 1958], pp. 223-24). Another recent critic, Francis Watson, has also
though his conclusion differs from the usual one, his assumptions have been tro1;1bledb 1 standard ~xplanations of Defoe's delay in. writing the
the same weakness. Moore does not think. that Selkirk's return to Eng novel; his readmg of Robinson Crusoe is salutary, but he offers no
\,'
land in 1712 weighed heavily on Defoe's mind in 1719, but he does ,. new insights about the Selkirk conjecture ( "Robinson Crusoe: Fact
regard as significant the contemporary economic situation in South and Fi.ction," Listener, LXII [October 15, 1959], 617-19).
America. He points out, that England's war with Spain had severed Earlier scholars .suggested that a new 1718 edition of Rogers ( which
trade relations between' South America and England's South Sea Com con~ained the Selkirk story) somehow prompted Defoe, but this sug
pany, and he argues tl).at Defoe's interest in stimulating colonization gestion does not seem very helpful unless it is meant to indicate that
near the Orinoco led him somehow to write Robinson Crusoe, though somehow Defoe'.s ~em?ry .wa~ jogged. Only briefly has it been sug
he is not explicit about how Robinson Crusoe delivers Defoe's economic gest~d that the msp1ratlon 1s tied to thematic concerns, and these sug
message. Moore argues that "if [Defoe] wrote a novel in 1719, it W\mld gest10ns have been related to biographical conjectures. Moore thinks
likely have something to say of the slave trade, of the jealousy .between that Defoe may have felt some concern for having left the calling ( the
England and Spain, of pirates and mutineers . . . , and of an island ministry) for which he prepared at Morton's Academy, or that he may
near the mouth of the Orinoco River." He adds that "no one could have have been concerned with the rebellion of his own son who showed
foreseen how Defoe would develop his hero's solitary life on the island," little inclination to obey his father's wishes. · '
and concludes that the development was a " 'strange surprise' to 12 Maximillian Novak has recently suggested that thematic concerns
Defoe himself" (Daniel Defoe: Citizen of the Modern World [Chicago, are primary in several of Defoe's works (see EF). Received opinion
l'
6 THE RELUCTANT PILGRIM
THE "OCCASION" OF ROBINSON CRUSOE
7
tion lead to the Selkirk conjecture, when pursued in an
Source studies of half a century ago are largely re'..
oth~r lead to more serious misconceptions about Robin
sponsible for this definition of context. The search for
s~n Crusoe. Because it is assumed that Defoe began with
sources turned rather naturally to travel books, for
factual information ( largely from travel literature),
source hunters were first looking for sources of informa
wove various facts together, embroidered his by now fic
tion, and travel books were the atlases and geographical
tional fabric with a semblance of truth, and, finally, tried
encyclopedias of Defoe's day. But the search never really
to pass off the result as a true account, the conclusion is
got beyond travel books, for the searchers never really
that Defoe desired to imitate his sources and that he
looked beyond factual information, even though they
wrote in the tradition of fictionalized travel literature. In
implied that Defoe's dependence on travel books was
"placing" Robinson Crusoe on the basis of ass~mptions
; almost total and influenced even the structure of books
about Defoe's method rather than on the basis of the
I like Robinson Crusoe. Then too, they were 'greatly en
book's text Defoe students have diverted critical atten
couraged iri their efforts by a strange and surprising
tion from ~elevant materials in other subliterary tradi- ·
bibliographical discov,ery of 1895.
tions and have instead defined a context which does a
Defoe's library had been sold a few months after his
serious injustice to Robinson Crusoe, for while Defoe's
death in 1731, and although the Daily Advertiser for
.'n ovel bears some resemblances to travel literature, it
Novembet·13, 1731, mentioned a sale catalogue, no copy
differs from that literature in crucial ways.13
of it had been found before 1895, when George A. Aitken
located one in the British Museum:.14 The value of the
about Defoe is indicated by the response which Professor Novak's sug
gestion received. See, for exam. ple, . the review by Michael S~ugrue find was considerably diminished, however, by the fact
i (JEGP, LXII [1963], 403-5), in which "Novak's. co~victi?!! ~at Defoe that Defoe's books were grouped with those of an Angli
/.· created his fiction from ideas rather than from incidents 1s regarded
., as "perhaps the only disturbing note in an otherwise excellent dis can clergyman, Philip Farewell, and the catalogue failed
cussion of Robinson Crusoe" ( p. 404). to distinguish individual ownership.15 Announcing his
13 At one time, Defoe students recognized that a wider. contex~ of, I
traditions nourished Robinson Crusoe; they usually mentioned b10g find in the Athendeum, Aitken admitted that because of
raphy, picaresque romance, and moral treatise. But events of t?e late the catalogue's grouping he was "in some cases ... un
nineteenth century obscured this conte~tual ri.chness. The. echps.e. of
ii able to say positively that a certain book was Defoe's,"
Defoe's moral reputation, based on _d1scoverie_asb out_ h_1s political
duplicity, was accompanied by decreasing att~ntio1; to his _ideas, espe but he thought that "we shall not be far wrong if we set
lt
cially moral and religious ones, and emphasis s?1fted, qmckly t~ the ~ ' iIi on one side certain classes of works as Dr. Farewell's and
adventure-story aspects of his _work.A t the same time, a _new consc1ousc
ness of the novel as an art form stimulated the desire to evaluate ! attribute .the remainder· to [Defoe]." On this assump-
Defoe's contributions to the history of fiction; this desire, combined
with the shift of emphasis from ideas to events in Defoe,. focused at
William Lee had noted the sale and. lamented the apparent loss of
tention on materials from which Defoe could have obtained factual 14
the catalogue. See his Daniel Defoe: His Life and Recently Dis
information.
co~ered Writings 1716-1729 (3 vols.; London, 1869), I, 470-71.
For early discussions of the relationship of Defoe's fiction to other
Besides, some of Defoe's books were apparently not sold through
traditions in which he wrote, see George A, Aitken, General Introduc
the catalogue. The' fact that the Farewell-Defoe sale catalogue con
tion Romances and Narratives by Daniel Defoe ( 16 vols.;, London,
tains only a few .of Defoe's own writings suggests that part of the
1895), I, xxixff.; and W. P. Trent, Daniel Defoe: How To Know Him
l~b':a_ryh ad been dispersed before the catalogue was printed. This pos
(Indianapolis, Ind., 1916), pp. 128, 135, 175. For the rationale be
s1bihty casts even further doubt on the· reliability of the catalogue as
hind Defoe source study, see Secord, Studies, p. 19.
a guide to Defoe's reading habits. · ·
,I
