The Press Saturday, November 28, 1925. A Few Words on Robinson Crusoe.

Press, Volume LXI, Issue 18551, 28 November 1925, Page 16

The Press Saturday, November 28, 1925. A Few Words on Robinson Crusoe.

It is sad, but true, that very few of the books that engrossed us in early youth retain their appeal in our maturity. Few of us could contemplate without depression an enforced course of reading in Gerstiicker, Mayne Rcid, Kingston, or Ballantyne. " The Three Midshipmen," continued as " The Three Lieutenants," '• Ditto Captains," " Ditto Admirals," have strangely lost their charm. Experience has made us sad. We have lost the old appetite for constant incident, and the improbable. We enjoy, so we say at least, character study, and Ihe sentiment that attaches to men and women in their mutual relations. But to the healthy boy, a creature, it has been said, in the Old Testament stage, whose hands delight to war and his fingers to fight, sentiment other than love of country, loyalty to prince or chief, or adventure by land or sea, is abhorrent. Give him a good, fullblooded pirate and lots of fighting, but none of your ridiculous love affairs. One of the principal reasons of the continued popularity of " Treasure " Islaud " Fifty men on the dead man's chest; Yo! Hoi Ho! And a bottle of rum—

said " Deadman's Chest" beinp a little flat-topped rock in the West Indies — is the complete absence of women in it; for, of course, mothers don't count. And the same remark applies to that far greater book, unique indeed in English literature, " Robinson Crusoe." This is one of the rare books that endures, enthralling us in boyhood, and still retaining its grip when our heads have grown grey. Its realism, its quietness, its matter-of-factness largely account for this. We have only to turn to the too informative " Swiss Family "Robinson,'.' with its cheap moral reflections and wishy-washy' sentiment, to realise what a great master of fiction Defoe was, and with what economy and restraint he wrote. "Whatever it was "that made the germ idea of 'Robinson Crusoe' take root in Defoe's "mind," wrote Minto in his admirable, if too hostile, monograph in the English Men of Letters series, "he "worked it out as an artist. Artists " of a more emotional type might have "drawn much more elaborate and " affecting word-pictures of the marin"er's feelings in various trying " situations, gone much deeper into his "changing moods, and shaken our " souls with pity and terror over the "solitary castaway's alarms and fits "of despair. Defoe's aims lay another way. His Crusoe is"—let us add fortunately—" not a man given "to the luxury of grieving. Jf he had " begun to pity himself he would have " been undone."

But if artist, Defoe was also opportunist, and too much a man of business not to take advantage of a popular success. Having written as artist a gem of a story, when it proved a wild success be wrote as tradesman a second part, and influenced partly by a hint he took from one of his critics, a third part as moralist. In this third part occurs the statement in reference to the great part one, " I, Robinson " Crusoe, do affirm that the story, "though allegorical, is also historical, " and that it is the beautiful represen"tation of a life"—the author's own, to wit—"of unexampled misfortunes, " and of a variety not to be met with "in this,world." And being in this turn of happy afterthought, Defoe proceeds to go into some detail and much haziness in the application of this singular theory. That there is a parallelism, in a large sense, between the lives of author and character does not admit of doubt, and this I parallelism was probably the reason, ! conscious or unconscious, why Defoe chose this subject for his greatest story, and was so happy in developing it. But I,that he wrote that easy-flowing tale as a mere vehicle for allegorised biography requires a degree of credulity of which only experts are capable. Minto cannot away with it, and lovers of Crusoe are as much revolted by it as a child by unpleasant powders intruded into jam. On the other hand the late Henry Kingsley, editor of the Globe Edition, finds himself reluctantly obliged,to confess that he has arrived at the conclusion that this wonderful romance i 9 no romance at all, hut a merely allegorical account of Defoe's own life for 28 years, though he does not feel competent to offer a- detailed interpretation. In this last respect he is in marked contrast with G. Parker, MX 1 ., who in an article contributed to a recent issue of "History" makes a bold and confident attempt to. unlock for the first time the standing puzzle of the allegory. Dr. Parker's key.is very simple. "He (i.e., Defoe)- merely " antedates every event in his own life, <« 29 years, and represents it by some "adventure of Crusoe's at that time. " Thus Defoe was born in 1661, Crusoe " in 1632. Defoe left College and went "out into the world in 1680. Crusoe "goes out in 1651. Defoe's first " political publication was in 1687, on " the eve of the Revolution. This be- " ginning of • his isolation" —Defoe through circumstances led a lonely life—"corresponds with Crusoe's sliip- " wreck in 1658." With this key Dr. Parker proceeds to unpack the allegory, or to vary, and mix, the metaphor, to wind his way into the heart of Defoe's- mystery with some very singular results. It is astonishing to what absurd extremes enthusiasm can carry, an obviously able man. His finest achievement is the business of the goats. We give it in his own words. " Crusoe's tame goats are De- " foe's publications, and the dates of "these agree with what is known from "other sources. The first was the " attack on the Declaration, of Indulgence, 1687. The first goat was " caught in 1658. The second book, 'A «<New Discovery of an Old Intrigue,' "came out in 1690, 29 years after

" Crusoe got his second goat in his " third year on the island. In 1697 "he published three more books, and " from that time every year saw a crop "of pamphlets, newspapers, histories, "and essays. Crusoe accordingly says " that in his eleventh year, 1668, he " captured three more, which mnlti- " plied so fast that he soon had some "scores of them." This is delightful, but other passages run it close. In 1706, when Defoe was up in Scotland on business connected with the Union, he was frightened by a riot in Edinburgh. Just 29 years earlier —Scotsmen, wc hope, will not be offended— Crusoe was badly scared by the struggles of the dying goat! And take this a little later: " We come now to " the last cannibal feast, when the " .Spaniard and Friday's father were •'rescued, dated 1655 by the words, " 'I was now entered on the 27th year "'of my captivity, though the last " 'throe vnars that I had this creature '''(Friday) with me had been much "''more pleasant," referring of course " to Ilarley's friendship, while possibly "Richard Steele, in writing 'The " 'Crisis,' was the white man who " fought by the side of Friday, and was '' nearly devoured by the savages." We hate having, to say that in spite of that " possibly " and " of course " we still prefer our " Robinson Crusoe " unexplained.