Ë öËÆƂÃ-$ÔROBINSON CRUSOE•, ƒ ññÃ-ÃA STUDY IN CURRENT SCHOLARSHIP AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS ƒ ÁÁ "There is not an old woman that can go the Price of it, but buys thy ”Life and Adventures•, and leaves it as a Legacy, with the ”Pilgrims Progress•, the ”Practice of Piety•, and ”God's Revenge Against Murther•, to her posterity" (Curtis, 7). This sentiment, attributed to an envious contemporary of Defoe's, reveals a great deal about the social, cultural, and literary phenomenon called ”Robinson Crusoe• and its impact on late seventeenth- and early eighteenth-century England. Written by Daniel Defoe in 1719, ”Robinson Crusoe• has continued to enjoy remarkable popular success for over two centuries, spawning countless editions, translations, imitations, and even continuations (Robinsonaden). It has been translated into Eskimo and Maltese, served as the inspiration for specialty cookbooks and restaurants, and even been adapted into the animal narratives of a dog (Seidel, 8). Although readers and critics continue to argue over whether or not ”Robinson Crusoe• is really a "good novel" (or even whether it is a novel at all) and the book itself is beginning to appear only on the shelves of children and academics, the point remains that the work still holds an important spot in our literary and cultural history and yields dozens of critical articles each year. In this essay I intend to discuss the movements of that criticism, paying particular attention to work done in the last ten years, the central questions involved, and possible directions for future research. Up until the 1950's there was only a modest amount of criticism written on Defoe; most of it consisted of reviews, biographical research, and historical analyses. Defoe himself was generally regarded as a marginal figure, historically important but not worthy of too much scrutiny-- a rather clumsy writer/journalist who had briefly wandered into fiction and accidentally managed to create some original novel structures and narrative techniques. However, about thirty years ago, Defoe suddenly became a "hot topic," inspiring thousands of articles and prolonged academic battles; critics began calling him crafty rather than careless and saw Defoe in a new light-- as a complex and skilled writer fully conscious of his creation to the point that his textual 'stumblings' became an essential part of his art. He has been called the "father of the modern novel" and compared to the likes of Shakespeare and Charles Dickens. His novels, particularly ”Robinson Crusoe•, have been presented as essential to the great Western myths. This is a huge about-face in the treatment of an author; what happened? Obviously the increasing prominence of critical theory over the last few decades has something to do with it; through the eyes of Marxism, Modernism, Structuralism, etc. . . , critics have discovered new ways of interpreting and understanding the novel. And they have had to. Since the middle of the century the pressure to publish has grown exponentially within university systems. Part of Defoe's new critical popularity probably has some basis in the fact his work remained relatively untouched until the middle of the century. The introduction of Defoe to criticism on an international scale, with studies published in Japanese, French, and German, undoubtedly added to the surge as well. As Defoe's first, most popular, and (some would say) best novel, ”Robinson Crusoe• has been at the forefront of this criticism, only recently rivaled by ”Moll Flanders• in the number of critical articles dedicated to it each year. But before diving into this sea of critical ink, it is important to acknowledge one of the major problems facing all ”Robinson Crusoe• scholars-- the lack of a definitive text. Why is there no such thing as a "definitive text" of ”Robinson Crusoe•? Unfortunately, Defoe's original manuscript was lost, and the first edition of the text was clearly subjected to changes during printing, changes which were probably not instigated by the author himself. Adding to the confusion, William Taylor, who published the first edition on April 25, 1719, put out five more editions of ”Robinson Crusoe• that same year-- editions which all differ from each other in significant ways; there were also a large number of unauthorized editions which appeared during the same period and contained even worse errata. Because of the lack of a definitive text, editors and publishers have simply 'made do' with whatever previous copies were at hand and altered the work according to their own purposes. Over the last two hundred and seventy-five years ”Robinson Crusoe• has appeared in many forms: modified children's stories, multivolume sets containing the original ”Robinson Crusoe• and its two sequels (discussed in more detail later) in which all three texts have been altered to avoid repetition, and even abridged works with the offending religious, violent, or "dull" parts removed. In his 1991 bibliographical checklist of ”Robinson Crusoe• editions, Robert C. Lovett lists almost two thousand different editions printed between 1719 and 1979; his listing is for those works published in English onlyœ. I have selected three useful editions for my bibliography. The Shakespeare Head Edition (1927; reprinted 1974) originally had a limited printing of seven-hundred and fifty copies and was based on a comparison of Taylor's first and third editions; this was the favorite edition of most critics until the more accessible and readily available Oxford Press Edition appeared in 1972. Part of the Oxford English Novels series, J.D. Crowley's version is based on the first edition of ”Robinson Crusoe• and provides admirable textual and explanatory notes; it now appears to be the leading edition of choice among current Defoe scholars, although certainly not the only one. The edition we are currently using in class -- the Norton Critical Edition, edited by Michael Shinagel-- is acknowledged as the best "handbook" version of the text, largely on virtue of its helpful background information and collections of both historical and modern essays on the text. A new Norton edition (presumably with new essays and updated biographical material) is anticipated for 1994. As hard as compiling a bibliography of Defoe's editions is, trying to put together a concrete biography of the writer is almost as difficult. Many of his letters have disappeared, the details of his childhood are sketchy at best, and certain years of his life seem to have disappeared completely. However, Paula R. Backsheider's 1989 biography of the author, ”Defoe and His Life•, is, without a doubt, the best attempt at a complete history we've seen so far. Building upon past biographies and working well beyond them, Backsheider provides us with new information and insights into the increasingly less elusive Daniel Defoe. This book will undoubtedly serve as the definitive critical biography for the next twenty or thirty years. In addition to Backsheider's work, there are numerous small biographies of Defoe available for critics who do not need to know his height or the names of his children. The best of these is probably John J. Richetti's ”Daniel Defoe• , published as part of the Twayne Authors Series. Normally Twayne biographies are to be approached with suspicion, but this is an admirable work, written by a leading Defoe scholar. Published in 1987, the work provides a convenient and authoritative "pocket-sized" biography of the author, including all the biographical material essential to a competent reading/study of Defoe's works. Unlike most short biographies, this book does not merely concentrate on Defoe as a writer of fiction, but as a journalist and political writer as well. A helpful chapter on ”Robinson Crusoe• as an adventure story is included. Much of the criticism currently written on Defoe's novel also has biographical ties to his life. For example, political studies of the author remain extremely popular. Before Defoe ever ventured into fiction he was a political journalist and professional writer to numerous governmental figures. How does ”Robinson Crusoe• reflect the political issues and struggles of his time? More interestingly, how does ”Robinson Crusoe• reflect Defoe's own politics? Although the author asserted himself as a radical whig early in life, over time he seemed to change with the political winds (i.e., who was in power), becoming more and more of a "moderate"; he was even accused of outright traitorship to his party during his employment by Robert Harley, Tory minister under Queen Anne. Because of these ambiguities, the effort to 'pin down' Defoe's political ideologies has become a major staple of Defoe studies. Over the last century ”Robinson Crusoe• has been presented in many political 'lights': as an examination of political evolution in a state of nature, a fictionalization of John Locke's political ideas or Hobbes' "commonwealth by acquisition," and an expression of modernity in Crusoe's systematic exploitation of nature to improve human living conditions. Crusoe himself has been seen as the embodiment of Defoe's political radicalism, a colonizing hero of trade, an emblem of positive divine patriarchal kingship, and an exploitive tyrant. Obviously many of these arguments conflict. How do we decide who is right? In the last ten years, most political examinations of ”Robinson Crusoe• have centered around two questions. First, how subversive is the text (and, by association, Defoe)? Second, was Defoe a monarchist? Most critics agree that the novel's discussion of kingship stems partly from the political events immediately preceding its publication (i.e., the controversy over a successor to Queen Anne and the overthrow of Defoe's employer, Robert Harley). A recent book by Geoffrey M. Sill, ”Defoe and the Art of Fiction, 1713-1719•, focuses particularly on this stage in Defoe's history and rather successfully cements the association between ”Robinson Crusoe• and the kingship controversy. What position does Defoe take in that controversy? This issue of sovereign power-- its nature, origins, and reproduction in society-- has yielded very different ”Robinson Crusoe• articles within the last few years. For example, Richard Braverman's 1986 article, "Crusoe's Legacy" interprets the novel as displaying a very radical Whig perspective on sovereignty. Manuel Schonhorn's ”Defoe's Politics•, on the other hand, argues that Defoe's ideas on sovereign leadership were decidedly based on conservative, traditional Old Testament teachings, to the point that ”Robinson Crusoe• becomes a outcry for the return of traditional royalism. Defoe's political theories are often closely linked to his economic views of the world. Ever since the publication of Karl Marx's "Crusoe and Capitalism" in 1921 and especially Ian Watt's "”Robinson Crusoe• as Myth" in 1951, the examination of Crusoe's need to accumulate goods, even useless goods, has been a major critical subject. Marxist readings of the work generally have focused on the process by which Crusoe assigns value to natural products through labor and on his role as a capitalist exploiter of the island and its people. In contrast, Watt's essay presented the novel as a modern myth of the economic man, who is rational but also anti-social and anti-traditional. Watt's 1957 ” The Rise of the Novel• further described Crusoe as an "economic Individualist," one who subordinates his relationships with others to questions of economic value and subjects his entire environment TO a book-keeping science. A decade later Maximillian Novak attacked this criticism by discussing Crusoe, not as an "economic individualist," but as a traditional mercantilist figure and bold colonizer disinterested in the 'new capitalism.' Later, with the increasing importance of historical colonialism and post-colonialist theory thoroughout the 1970's and early 80's, economic criticism focused more directly on economic primitivism and the colonizing aspects of Crusoe's story, as critics like E. Perelman and Martin Green described Crusoe as an imperialist economic force. A number of articles and books have appeared in the last ten years to build on this economic criticism. Some merely add to points already made by previous critics; Thomas Meier's rather ineffectual ”Defoe and the Defense of Commerce•, for example, is predominantly a restatement of Novak's theories. However, other critical works, such as Martin Gliserman's "”Robinson Crusoe•: the Vicissitudes of Greed-- Cannibalism and Capitalism," bring valuable new vocabularies and theories (in this case psychoanalytic) into the discussion. Finally, works such as Diana Loxley's ”Problematic Shores• and Martin Green's ”The Robinson Crusoe Story• examine the impact of the novel's colonialist economic theories on later literature, pointing to a reflection of England's changing economic and imperialist policies within a specific literary genre. Economic studies, for the most part, have replaced religious studies as a "hot topic" in Defoe criticism. Yet, there was a time during the 1960's and early 70's when a halfway decent article on Crusoe's puritanism would be published without question. Once again, Ian Watt's 1957 ”The Rise of the Novel• contributed to the popularity of this issue, presenting Robinson Crusoe's constant examination of his world for religious significance as being reflective of contemporary Puritanism. In the mid-60's, both George A. Starr and J. Paul Hunter, the two leaders in Defoe religious studies, published books on Crusoe's spiritual nature. Starr's” Defoe and the Spiritual Biography• (1965) fit ”Robinson Crusoe• into the genre of spiritual autobiography (sin leads to trials and tribulations and finally to repentance and deliverance), while Hunter's ”The Reluctant Pilgrim• (1966) tied the novel to Puritan subliterary traditions, such as the pilgrim allegory. Since their critical works, the field has been fairly glutted with essays on Crusoe's puritanism and the nature of his repentance, but the last ten years have yielded two rather interesting essays. Timothy Blackburn's 1985 "Friday's Religion: Its Nature and Importance in ”Robinson Crusoe•" revives religious discussion of the indian's conversion by asking, "What sort of Christian is Friday?" He also argues that Defoe's presentation of Friday's indigenous religion represents an attack on deism within eighteenth-century English society. Harold Fisch, on the other hand, presents us with a traditional rabbinical discussion of ”Robinson Crusoe• as an exploration of the Old Testament-- particularly the story of Jonah. Another popular trend in Defoe criticism involves the study of his place within literary tradition, particularly British literary tradition. As mentioned earlier, Defoe has sometimes been called the "father of the modern novel" because of the new "literary reality" he brought to his fiction through plain language and seemingly authentic first person voices. The nature of Defoe's narrative technique, therefore, remains a "hot topic" as critics attempt to understand the nature and magnitude of his literary innovations. As mentioned earlier in this essay, pre-1950's criticism on the author both admired his narratives and mocked his awareness in creating them. Even as late as 1957, Ian Watt argued for a sort of "formal realism" in Defoe's fiction, a phenomenon in which the author was not completely in control of his novels but rather allowed them to flow along according to his own innate sense of what should come next. Increasingly, however, critics have begun to see Defoe as a fully conscious, skilled, and extremely technical writer whose plain narrative style adds to his realism and artistic consistency. Early works of John J. Richetti, a leader in the study of Defoe's narrative, examined ”Robinson Crusoe•'s narrative as a conflict between the religious and the secular such that the protagonist becomes a "secular saint"; Richetti's 1975 ”Defoe's Narratives: Situations and Structures• furthered this discussion by examining the "imaginative unity" with exists despite these tensions. Over a decade later Michael Seidel's "Crusoe in Exile," called ”Robinson Crusoe• a "narrative allegorical history" and compared its plot to patterns of biblical, national, and spiritual histories. A huge number of narrative studies have appeared on ”Robinson Crusoe• between 1983 and 1993. The most important is probably Michael M. Boardman's ”Defoe and the Uses of Narrative• ; published in 1983, this critical book re-examines Defoe's strategies and rejects Watt's and Richetti's earlier arguments, claiming Defoe did have narrative control through a "multiple, fluctuating narrative." Boardman identifies three distinct narrative voices within ”Robinson Crusoe•-- the reportorial, the personal, and the interactive-- and traces their patterns throughout the text. Another interesting work, Laura Curtis' ”The Elusive Daniel Defoe•, presents Defoe as an author "divided" between an ideal world of order and a real world full of disorder and chaos. ”Robinson Crusoe• reflects the voice of the first world, the voice of the "plain dealer." A related branch of this literary history criticism is genre theory. Most critics agree that ”Robinson Crusoe• can be tied to not only the traditions of spiritual biography but also a type of eighteenth-century popular fiction called "travel literature." Although this idea is not at all new, three current studies-- Ian Bell's ”Defoe's Fiction•, J.A. Downie's "Defoe, Imperialism, and Travel Books Considered," and Martin Green's ”The Robinson Crusoe Story•-- reconsider Defoe's novel within the genre. Green's book is particularly interesting as it ties ”Robinson Crusoe•'s themes to later, very different fictions, such as ”Peter Pan•, ”Treasure Island•, and ”Lord of the Flies•. Virgina Ogden Birdsall's ”Defoe's Perpetual Seekers• should also be listed in this section, for it relates Defoe's fiction to two of his literary influences-- Hobbes and Rochester. The last major trend in ”Robinson Crusoe• studies can only be labeled "Defoe's aesthetics," for it includes discussions of the more artistic aspects of his writing. Central to this section are the concepts of myth-making and Defoe's imagination. Recall Ian Watt's "”Robinson Crusoe• as Myth," which describes the novel as a myth of the economic man; Watt's ”The Rise of the Novel• also presented ”Robinson Crusoe• as a part of great Western myth-- carrying as much weight as ”Faust•, ”Don Juan•, or ”Don Quixote•. Other critics have bestowed myth-status on the novel on virtue of its treatment of the exiled man and the proverbial human retreat from society to spiritual healing in natural solitude. More recent works, such as Martin Green's book (mentioned above) and Maximillian Novak's 1983 ”Realism, Myth, and History in Defoe's Fiction•, have examined Defoe's transformation of history and contemporary issues into mythic subjects. Ruth Danon's ”Work in the English Novel: From Defoe to Hardy•, published in 1985, even goes so far as to define ”Robinson Crusoe•'s controlling image as the "myth of vocation," in which work defines and sustains the self. Another fascinating 1984 article by James H. Maddox examines Crusoe's own search for a myth that will both explain and justify his existence; in "Interpreter Crusoe," he argues that the original sin of disobedience against the father --biological and spiritual-- becomes the inscribing myth behind Crusoe's story. How do words on a page gain the status of myth? Most critics would argue this process occurs through the imagination of the writer; thus, studies of Defoe's imagination form another crucial trend of aesthetic criticism. The majority of articles in this area examine the sources of Defoe's verisimilitude-- how does he make the world of Crusoe seem so "real"? Countless critics have discussed Defoe's ability to "become" his characters as a significant factor in this process, as well as his plain, direct, and journalistic style. Particularly important to these studies is Richetti's discussion of "imaginative unity" in ”Popular Fiction Before Richardson, Narrative Patterns, 1700-1739•. Two particular articles written in the last five years seem particularly applicable to the topic of imagination. James O. Foster's "”Robinson Crusoe• and the Uses of Imagination," published in 1992, discusses the dichotomous role of imagination in the text; just as Crusoe's imagination helps him survive and impose order on the island, it also leads to disorderly and irrational reactions (i.e., to the footprint) and the dangerous need to test limits (which got him on the island in the first place). Foster suggests the same dichotomy of imagination exists in Defoe, who is never truly in control of his creative impulses. Eric Jager's "The Parrot's Voice: Language and the Self in ”Robinson Crusoe•" directs this conversation toward's Crusoe's language use, arguing that the protagonist's imaginative and active use of language not only serves as a survival tool but also allows Crusoe to create and recreate himself. The five categories mentioned above certainly do not represent the entirity of ”Robinson Crusoe• criticism today-- instead, they are an attempt to organize the major trends found in this criticism. Other less important trends include: studies of ”Robinson Crusoe• as "juvenile literature," source studies in which the novel is seen as a contributor to a more recent works, and parody or continuation literature. The most interesting example of the latter trend is J.M. Coetzee's 1987 ”Foe• which mocks Defoe's colonial representations by presenting an ineffectual Crusoe with rotten teeth (from twenty-eight years of not brushing), a tongue-less Friday, and a take-charge woman named Susan Barton who reinscribes the entire story. That about sums up past criticism. What is left to be done? The immediate reaction seems to be "not much." During the last thirty years Defoe's fiction-- particularly ”Robinson Crusoe•-- has been literally saturated in critical ink. The prospects of writing an original, or even provocative, study of the novel seem to be rapidly dwindling as critics work at a furious pace rewording, revising, rejecting, or even reconstituting past criticism in their search to say something new. In a 1988 ”SEL• review of eighteenth-century studies, Robert Hume comments, "A major biography of Defoe is clearly needed, and an account of him as a political writer is a major desideratum; what we do with him beyond that is not so easy to say" (Hume, 535). The biography has since been completed (admirably by Paula Backsheider) and a flood of political commentary has appeared in the last five years. Now what do we do? Some of the current criticism mentioned in this essay could certainly be built upon. For example, Eric Jager's "The Parrot's Voice" suggests that Crusoe's language (particularly writing) functions as a way of defining and maintaining the self; did Defoe's writings function for him in the same way? What about Friday? Does his adopted language define and maintain him in new and wonderful ways, or, by giving up his native language, does Friday lose himself? Gliserman's concepts of desire and encirclement, as well as the gender reading published by Robyn Weigman in 1989 (see under politics in the bibliography) should spark further criticism as well. However, the most obvious critical work deserving response is Schonhorn's rather aggressive ”Defoe's Politics•, which will undoubtably elicit criticism from the "modern" critics he dismisses so thoroughly. I am not at all certain that these two political views of Defoe need to be so mutually exclusive. As a political figure and writer who seemed to shift parties on more than one occasion, couldn't Defoe have been politically complex enough to have both traditional and radical ideologies? In the 1970's, John Richetti managed to synthesize the tensions between economic and religious views of the novel. Perhaps a critic can successfully intervene in this political arena as well. There is one more, particularly promising gap in Robinson Crusoe criticism-- the question of serialization. Few readers realize that, not one, but two sequels exist for this famous novel, sequels which seem to have disappeared from the realms of literature. How do ”Farther Adventures of Robinson Crusoe• (1719) and ”Serious Reflections during the Life and Surprising Adventures of Robinson Crusoe• (1720) compare to the original text? Why have they been so completely ignored? Defoe published all three texts within the space of a year and a half, and the conclusion of ”The Life and Adventures of Robinson Crusoe• anticipates its sequel. What does it mean that Defoe planned on sequelizing his text? There are also questions of quality and development involved in this sequelization. Should all three texts be combined to read the "complete" ”Robinson Crusoe•? Or are the last two novels merely money-makers taking advantage of the first volume's success? Writers generally learn and improve with the writing of each new text, and ”The Life and Adventures •represented Defoe's first attempt at a novel. Do the two sequels show any mark of development on his part? What little criticism I've read suggests not, yet Defoe himself argued that ”Farther Adventures• was as good as his first volume. If a critic can prove the sequel is far inferior (and Defoe's assertion is taken as a truthful assertion of his own beliefs), a new way of exposing the author as an "accidental genius" is opened. Ultimately, I think this final question is one worthy of reconsideration; in the rush to publish, critics seem to have over-glorified the text, rocketing it from relative critical obscurity to phenomenal status. Is ”Robinson Crusoe• really a purposeful work of true genius or a problematic text with some revolutionary innovations? Is Defoe one of our greatest literary talents or a political writer who wandered into fiction and was immortalized for a largely unconscious performance? * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ”AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY OF ROBINSON CRUSOE CRITICISM, 1983-1993• EDITIONS Defoe, Daniel. ” The Life & Strange Surprizing Adventures of Robinson Crusoe of York, Mariner Who lives Eight and Twenty Years, All Alone in an Un-inhabited Island on the Coast of America, Near the Mouth of the Great River of Oroo-noque; Having Been Cast on Shore by Shipwreck, Wherein All the Men Perished But Himself. With an Account How He Was at Last as Strangely Deliver'd by Pyrates. Written by Himself. Volume I.• (1719). In the ”Shakespeare Head Edition of the Novels of Daniel Defoe•. Oxford: Shakespeare Head, 1927, reprinted 1974. Defoe, Daniel. ” The Life and Strange Surprizing Adventures of Robinson Crusoe•. London: Oxford University Press, 1972. Defoe, Daniel. ”Robinson Crusoe•. New York: W.W. Norton & Company,Inc., 1975. Lovett, Robert W. ” Robinson Crusoe: A Bibliographical Checklist of English Language Editions (1719- 1979)•. New York: Greenwood Press, 1991. BIOGRAPHIES Backscheider, Paula R. ”Daniel Defoe: His Life•. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1989. A badly needed addition to Defoe criticism, Backscheider's work is the first full biography of the author since 1958. Despite mixed reviews, it serves as the most comprehensive discussion of his life and literary career so far. Richetti, John J. ”Daniel Defoe•. Boston: Twayne Publishers, 1987. An analysis of Defoe's fiction and nonfiction works with some biographical interpretation-- i.e., "the facts of Defoe's career." While inferior to Backsheider in terms of the sheer amounts of biographical detail given, Richetti's work provides an admirable "pocket-sized" biography of Defoe, providing the essential biographical information on the author. One chapter entitled "”Robinson Crusoe• and the Novel of Adventure" discusses the writing of the piece, possible "real life" inspirations for it, and a summary of the novel with decided emphasis on Crusoe's metamorphosis from defensive, anxious settler to aggressive, conquering adventurer. CRITICISM [At first glance this bibliographic listing probably seems very confusing; let me explain my methodology. In an attempt to understand the trends in current criticism on ”RC•, I have designated five topical categories and, for each article/book, chosen the best category in which to place it. This is not at all an exact science, for many works (such as Ian P.Watt's ”The Rise of the Novel•) cover multiple themes. Therefore an * at the end of each section points out other relevant critical works found elsewhere in the bibliography. The works in each section are arranged chronologically rather than alphabetically in order to further examine the development of critical ideas over time. Notice that I have included a few of the most essential books of criticism written before 1983 in this bibliography. For a more detailed listing of pre-1980 criticism on Defoe, try John Stoler's ”Daniel Defoe: An Annotated Bibliography of Modern Criticism, 1900-1980•. (New York: Garland Publishing, Inc.,1984.); criticism before 1925 also appears in Spiro Peterson's ”Daniel Defoe: A Reference Guide, 1713-1924• (Boston: G.K. Hall & Co., 1987)] Politicsœ Novak, Maximillian E.. ”Defoe and the Nature of Man•. London: Oxford University Press, 1963. An examination of Defoe's fiction in the context of natural law theories in seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Novak argues that Defoe does supply standards of morality in his work-- standards based on natural, rather than institutionalized, law. Sill, Geoffrey M. ”Defoe and the Idea of Fiction, 1713-1719•. Newark: University of Delaware Press,1983. Reads ”RC• as an offshoot of Defoe's political criticism. After examining the years immediately preceding the novel's publication, Sill concludes that Crusoe is presented as a "moral man"-- a model of self-restraint against his ambition and adventurous urges. Through the character, Defoe emphasizes the need for moral restraint within his own political society. Braverman, Richard. "Crusoe's Legacy."” Studies in the Novel •18 (1986): 1-26. Argues that ”RC•'s central concern is sovereign power-- its nature, origins, and reproduction within society. Ultimately, Defoe takes the radical Whig perspective on this issue; "[t]he novel legitimates the temporal repetition of power which originates in property, sanctioning resistance to (Stuart) patriarchalist authority as the basis of political independence, broadly defined as life, liberty, and property." Davis, Stuart. "Interrogating an Ideology: Defoe's” Robinson Crusoe•." ”British Journal for Eighteenth-Century Studies•. 10.2 (Autumn 1987): 163-173. Analyzes ”RC• as a novel-length interrogation of the ideologies of Defoe's age; the novel becomes subversive in its ability to expose troublesome gaps in the ideological infrastructure of his culture-- revealing tensions between radical individualism and authoritarian collectivism, freedom and determinism, and, ultimately, man and God. ”RC• is shown to be a radical text, arguing for freedom and personal autonomy over the dominant collective and authoritarian ideologies of his time. Bell, Ian A. "King Crusoe: Locke's Political Theory in ”Robinson Crusoe•." ”English Studies• 69 (Spring 1988): 27-36. Bell sees ”RC• as a "naturalizing" of Locke's political ideology-- his ideas on the proper formation of political communities. Starting off with a dramatized 'natural state' Crusoe's island gradually develops into an industrious working commonwealth. Especially emphasized is Defoe's "dismantling of patriarchial authority." Flint, Christopher. "Orphaning the Family: The Role of Kinship in ”Robinson Crusoe•." ” English Literary History• 55 (1988): 381-419. Flint argues for a sort of "visible absence" of family as a "constituting element in Defoe's narrative strategy." Although Crusoe actively differentiates himself from the norms of his family-- becoming an independent individual by severing his ties with them-- he also seems to reinscribe family values repeatedly throughout his stay on the island. Flint points out the multiple appearances of family domesticity on the isolated island, but argues that Defoe's reluctance to give Crusoe a happy return home to living family members reveals a skepticism about the possibility of finding satisfaction within family structures. Wiegman, Robyn. "Economies of the Body: Gendered Sites in ”Robinson Crusoe• and ”Roxana•." ”Criticism•. 31.1 (Winter 1989): 33-51. An analysis of gender roles in ” RC• and ”Roxana•. Wiegman asserts that Crusoe's sexuality is channeled into power relationships in which both the landscape and Friday become symbolic females. White male sexuality is displaced from the body into power politics, in which the island and creatures on it are adapted to Crusoe's pleasures. Schonhorn, Manuel. ”Defoe's Politics: Parliament, Power, Kingship, and Robinson Crusoe•. New York:Cambridge University Press, 1991. Issued as a "challenge [to] the critical demand that we see Defoe as a 'modern,'" the essay considers Defoe's works within seventeenth-century political contexts. Schonhorn argues that the author's political ideas are profoundly based on the Old Testament, and presents Defoe as a decidedly traditional, conservative, and royalist political thinker. Strongly contrasting earlier interpretations of ”RC• as radical, populist, and decidedly Lockean, Schonhorn analyzes the novel as a vision of the "warrior king" found in biblical, ancient, and English history. Written for a society on the verge of parlimentary constitutionalism, ”RC• becomes an outcry for traditional royalism-- a state instituted and maintained by a warrior-statesman chosen and certified by God. An interesting and valuable study, marginally flawed by the critic's over-aggressive stance that his interpretation is ”the•œ right one. *see also Ian Watt and Thomas Meier*Œ Economics/Capitalismœ Watt, Ian P. ”The Rise of the Novel, Studies in Defoe, Richardson, and Fielding•. London: Chatto &Windus, 1957. Discusses Robinson Crusoe as reflective of his age's emerging economic principles ("economic individualism") and Puritan religious code. Watt also introduces the idea of "formal realism" (art copies and is subordinate to life) and argues that Defoe is not thoroughly in control of his novels, but rather allows them to flow along according to his own innate sense of what should come next. Significantly, this concept subordinates plot to the patterns of autobiographical experience, creating a new narrative style. A Must! Novak, Maximillian E. ”Economics and the Fiction of Daniel Defoe•. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1962. A thorough study of the economic bases of Defoe's fiction. Novak argues that ”RC• reflects traditional mercantile theories and attacks economic individualism and other capitalist ideals. Essential. Downie, J.A. "Defoe, Imperialism, and Travel Books Reconsidered." ” Yearbook of English Studies• 13 (1983): 66-83. Building off a number of old arguments, Downie examines Crusoe as a heroic adventurer in the tradition of travel books. This popular form of literature becomes a vehicle for "imperialist propoganda," as Crusoe serves as a pioneer adventurer who clears the way for settlers and, eventually, trade. Meier, Thomas Keith. ”Defoe and the Defense of Commerce•. Victoria: University of Victoria, 1987. Working off of Novak's ”Economics•, Meier argues that Defoe's works attempted to calm an anxious aristocracy who felt commerce represented a threat to their way of life. Portraying Defoe as a "champion of business activity," the book focuses primarily on the author's nonfiction; however, the argument could be reflected upon his fiction as well, particularly” Moll Flanders•. Marginally useful. Gliserman, Martin. "”Robinson Crusoe•: the Vicissitudes of Greed-- Cannibalism and Capitalism."”American Imago•. 47.3-4 (Fall-Winter 1990): 197-231. Subtitled "Displaced Desire: Money, Mother, Eating, and Encirclements," this essay examines the psychological split between body/money/desire and mind/law/within the novel (just as Richetti studies the split between economics and religion). Gliserman concludes that” RC• demonstrates a transformation of base, cannabalistic desires into more civilized forms of consumption-- through labor, imperialism, and capitalism. Loxley, Diana. ”Problematic Shores: The Literature of Islands•. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1990.Uses ”RC• as a pivotal text in discussing the imperialistic themes in some nineteenth-century texts. Loxley examines the island motif as an ideal discourse which provides model formulas for the processes of colonialism and imperialism. Verne's ”The Mysterious Island•, Wyss's ”The Swiss Family Robinson•, and several other nineteenth-century novels are seen as reworkings of ”RC•'s core narrative, the changes in which map out British colonial thought over time. *see also Stuart Davis and Martin Green* Religionœ Starr, George A. ”Defoe & Spiritual Autobiography•. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1965. Places ”RC• (as well as ”Moll Flanders• and ”Roxana•) within the traditions of spiritual autobiography. Crusoe sins against his family and God through his youthful rebelliousness, but undergoes a spiritual transformation over the course of the novel (through a torturous series of repentances and relapses until true repentance can take place). Hunter, J. Paul. ”The Reluctant Pilgrim, Defoe's Emblematic Method and Quest for Form in Robinson Crusoe•. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1966. An examination of ”RC•'s ties to Puritan subliterary tradition, including "providence literature" and the "pilgrim allegory." Starr, George A. ”Defoe & Casuistry•. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1971. Blackburn, Timothy C. "Friday's Religion: Its Nature and Importance in ”Robinson Crusoe•." ”Eighteenth-Century Studies• 18 (Spring 1985): 360-382. Using Crusoe's assertion that Friday is a Christian 'with few equals' as a jumping stone, Blackburn ponders the question, "What kind of Christian is Friday?" He argues that Defoe's treatment of Friday's pagan religion acts as a critique and rejection of deism, emphasizing the limits of natural reason and the importance of biblical revelation. Blackburn analyzes the author's religious beliefs, claiming Defoe thought of Christianity a profoundly civilizing influence. In this manner, Friday's Christianity ultimately becomes a "model of the essence of reformed Christianity and its necessary civil theology." Fisch, Harold. "The Hermeneutic Quest in ”Robinson Crusoe•." ”Midrash and Literature•. Ed. Geoffrey H. Hartman and Sanford Burdick. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1986. 213-235. Rabbinical study of ”RC• as a moral pilgrimage made unusual by the number of biblical allusions found in such an ordinary, palpable environment. The novel becomes an imaginative exploration of the Old Testament-- particularly the story of Jonah which will be a controlling image in the text. * see also Paula Backsheider, Ian Watt, and John Richetti*  Literary Historyœ Birdsall, Virginia Ogden. ”Defoe's Perpetual Seekers: A Study of the Major Fiction•. Lewisburg: Bucknell University Press, 1985. Birdsall discusses Defoe's fiction as having been crucially influenced by Hobbes and Rochester. Robinson Crusoe is defined as a "man made in the Rochester mode" because of his deeply-hidden but ever-present skepticism; Birdsall claims that Crusoe's feelings of powerlessness and consequent drive to be in control fit into both the Hobbesian and Rochesterian views of man. Bell, Ian A. ”Defoe's Fiction•. London: Croom Helm, 1985. An analysis of his work in the context of eighteenth-century popular narrative, the essay focuses on Defoe's cultural position and the audience for whom he wrote his fiction. The chapter on ”RC• places it within the genre of the traveller's tale, a popular fiction form used to enthrall while defamiliarising the repetitive patterns of normal existence-- providing lessons in life while entertaining and exciting the reader. Seidel, Michael. ” Robinson Crusoe: Island Myths and the Novel•. Boston: Twayne Publishers, 1991.Examines the historical and literary pressures of Defoe's age and their possible contributions to ”RC•. Short, concise, and relatively simple, this book could serve as a useful "companion" reader to the actual novel. Hentzi, Gary. "Sublime Moments and Social Authority in ”Robinson Crusoe• and ”A Journal of the Plague Year•." ”Eighteenth-Century Studies• 26 (Spring 1993): 419-434. Attempts to relate” RC• to the aesthetic of the sublime (an eighteenth-century idea assoc. with religious awe, strong emotion, and natural magnificence) and, through the text, link the sublime with issues of social authority. * see also Martin B. Green and J.A. Downie* Narrativeœ Watt, Ian. "”Robinson Crusoe• as Myth." Essays in Criticism 1 (1951): 95-119. Presents RC as the myth of the economic man. Richetti, John J. ”Popular Fiction Before Richardson, Narrative Patterns 1700-1739•. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1969. Uses Defoe's work to define the "ideological matrix" which spawns Richardson and Fielding. Particularly of interest is the conflict between the religious and the secular which transform Robinson Crusoe into a "secular Saint." ---------. ”Defoe's Narratives: Situations and Structures•. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1975. A important early study of Defoe's narrative and "imaginative unity." Richetti argues that the coherence in Defoe's fiction stems from the self-assertion of the protagonists. Essential. Boardman, Michael M. ”Defoe and the Uses of Narrative•. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 1983. A perceptive investigation of Defoe's narrative strategies, examining the narrative forms and uses available to him during the eighteenth-century and how and why he transformed some of them. Unlike Watt and Richetti, Boardman claims narrative control was possible for Defoe through a "multiple, fluctuating narrative"; he identifies three very distinct narrative voices over the course of ”RC•-- the reportorial, the personal, and the interactive.ŒButler, Mary E. "The Effect of the Narrator's Rhetorical Uncertainty on the Fiction of ”Robinson Crusoe•." ”Studies in the Novel• 15.2 (Summer 1983): 77-90. Argues that Crusoe's constant self-corrections throughout the text both reveal Defoe's fascination with the process of creating fiction and give ”RC• the illusion of being "real" on virtue of the author's admitted fallibility. That is, ”RC•'s successfully completed form stems precisely from the suggestions that the text is incomplete. Curtis, Laura A. ” The Elusive Daniel Defoe•. New York: Barnes and Noble, 1984. A not particularly prominent work which examines Defoe as an author "divided" between his ideal world of order and rational thought and a real world full of disorder and impulse. Curtis presents us with two Defoes: a "plain dealer" and a "sophisticated trickster"; ”RC• becomes an ideal inspired by the plain dealer's perspective, while ”Moll Flanders• reveals a more worldly-wise Defoe. Bell, Ian A.. "Narrators and Narrative in Defoe." ”Novel: A Forum on Fiction• 18.2 (Winter 1985): 154-179. Another chapter in the discussions of Defoe's narrative, this essay finds ”RC• to be a temporal narrative, a "simple chronicle," and the author's most conventional use of first person; while later fictions-- ”Moll Flanders• and ”Roxana•-- will be made more problematic (through the creation of tension between the the role of the first person narrator as narrator of adventure and as an agent of adventure), ”RC• flows easily as a sequential reconstruction of events with only short glimpses of hindsight involved. *see also Ian Watt, Michael Seidel, Maximillian Novak, and Martin Green* Aestheticsœ Novak, Maximillian. ”Realism, Myth, and History in Defoe's Fiction•. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1983. A collection of Novak's essays with a particularly good one on mythmaking in ”RC•. Examining Defoe's alteration of history to suit his narrative purposes, Novak presents ”RC• as the author's "most imaginative fiction" and attempts to locate the historical/cultural events which might have sparked that imagination. In this manner, ”RC• becomes both outside of and deeply imbedded within the historical moment. Maddox, James H. "Interpreter Crusoe." ”ELH • 51 (Spring 1984): 33-52. Examines Crusoe's search for a way to interpret his life-- a myth that will both explain and justify his existence. In writing his autobiography Crusoe explains his misfortunes through the all-informing myth of his sin of disobedience (against his father); this is a comforting myth, for it points to a traditional biblical storyline: disobedience leads to trials and tribulations but will end finally in repentence and restoration to favor. Maddox argues that Crusoe arranges the events, as well as people in his life, around this myth. However, an underlying skepticism also permeates the text; how confident is Crusoe about his comforting myth? Interpretation is clearly shown as a solacing activity; Robinson Crusoe is aware of his need for this solace, and so seems to vacillate between confidence in his interpretations and anxious misgivings over their validity. ŒDanon, Ruth. ”Work in the English Novel: From Defoe to Hardy•. Totowa: Barnes and Noble, 1985.Contains a chapter entitled "”Robinson Crusoe•: Defining the Myth of Vocation." Danon argues that the novel presents work as the primary source of self-definition, preservation, and satisfaction in human existence. Crusoe's life is made whole only by work which becomes "the major integrating force of human life." Jager, Eric. "The Parrot's Voice: Language and the Self in ”Robinson Crusoe•." ”Eighteenth-Century Studies• 21 (Spring 1988): 316-33. An interesting study of the function of language (especially writing) on Crusoe's island. Jager argues that Robinson Crusoe's constant verbal activity-- talking to himself, the parrot, God, and later, Friday-- acts as not only a mechanism for staying sane and surviving profound isolation, but also as a way of "making and remaking" himself through language. Instead of allowing his language skills to deteriorate in the absence of society, Crusoe actively tries to maintain it, and, at the same time, maintains himself through language. Green, Martin Burgess. ”The Robinson Crusoe Story•. University Park, Pa.: Penn State University Press, 1990. A structuralist study which examines the "Crusoe story" as one which has been told and retold by different storytellers throughout history and picks seven "motifs" that have cultural meaning in the test: the desert island, the new life, survival through work, prosperity through work, encounters with the "other," and "morally justified imperialism." Green then finds these themes in other, very different fictions (such as ”Treasure Island•, ”Peter Pan•, and ”Lord of the Flies•) and examines how the story -- particularly the narrative elements-- have changed or remained the same over time. Ferry, Anne. "The Naming of 'Crusoe.'" ”Eighteenth-Century Life•. 16.3 (November 1992): 195-207. An examination of Elizabeth Bishop's "Crusoe in England" as it builds off of ”RC•-- specifically in terms of its treatment of language and 'naming' one's environment. Although this work is not particularly important to Defoe studies, I've included it for the benefit of those students studying for the M.A. comps (where both Bishop and Defoe appear). Armstrong, Dianne. "The Myth of Cronus: Cannibal and Sign in ”Robinson Crusoe•." ”Eighteenth-Century Fiction• 4.3 (April 1992): 207-220. A structuralist study of the novel. Using "cannibal" as an example, Armstrong examines the metaphorical levels of Crusoe's language and argues that behind the utilitarian wording of the novel is a figurative and allegorical text. The term, "cannibal," is linked to the myth of Cronus (and, therefore, parricide)-- enriching our interpretation of Crusoe's relationship with his father, as well the other parent-child relationships in the novel. "Cannibalism" also is tied to imperialism and hegemony as Crusoe "consumes" the identities of those on his island-- becoming a "cannibal king." Finally all human nature becomes "cannibalistic," the distinction between Crusoe and the savages only a difference of degree. Foster, James O. "”Robinson Crusoe• and the Uses of the Imagination." ”Journal of English and Germanic Philology• 91 (April 1992): 179-202. Argues that the ambiguity of psychology and spirit in ”RC• stems from more than just secular economics vs. religion (see Watt, Richetti). Instead, the problem stems from a conflict between the imagined individual and his attempts to escape a specific religious and natural environment and the "superimposed spiritualizing framework of meaning which attempts-- and finally fails-- to circumscribe Crusoe's behavior and and to control his destiny." Imagination helps impose order and shape on the story but it also leads to Crusoe's irrational behavior and a need to test limits, thereby threatening that order. According to Foster, Crusoe is never completely in control of his imagination. * see also Laura A. Curtis, Diana Loxley, John J. Richetti, and Michael Seidel* Œ