DePauw UniversityScholarly and Creative Work from DePauw University

English Faculty publications English

2018

Daniel Defoe's Protestant Roman Catholics. GlobalReligion, Colonialism, and the Limits of Tolerationin The Farther Adventures of Robinson CrusoeDavid AlvarezDePauw University, davidalvarez@depauw.edu

Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.depauw.edu/eng_facpubs

Part of the Literature in English, British Isles Commons

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the English at Scholarly and Creative Work from DePauw University. It has been accepted forinclusion in English Faculty publications by an authorized administrator of Scholarly and Creative Work from DePauw University. For moreinformation, please contact bcox@depauw.edu.

Recommended CitationOriginally published under a Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 (CC-BY) in: Alvarez, David, "Daniel Defoe's ProtestantRoman Catholics. Global Religion, Colonialism, and the Limits of Toleration in The Farther Adventures of Robinson Crusoe." I castelli diYale online (2018) vol. VI, no. 2, pp. 1-28. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15160/2282-5460/1955

SAGGI E STUDI I castelli di Yale online

VI, 2018, 2 pp. 1-28

ISSN: 2282-5460

DAVID ALVAREZ

DANIEL DEFOE’S PROTESTANT ROMAN CATHOLICS. GLOBAL RELIGION, COLONIALISM, AND THE LIMITS OF TOLERATION IN THE FARTHER ADVENTURES OF ROBINSON CRUSOE

Abstract.InDanielDefoe’sTheFartherAdventuresofRobinsonCrusoe(1719),the Protestant protagonist treats Roman Catholics with a friendly tolerance,which seems at odds with his violence towards idolaters. Placing the novelwithinthehistoryofsecularityrevealsthatCrusoecantolerateRomanCatho-licsbecausetheirreligionisrepresentedinProtestantterms.Inhisglobaltrav-els, an implicit Protestantism shapes his understanding of “religion”, whichcannotaccommodate idolaters.Topromoteaproperformofreligionthathecantolerate,Crusoeturnstoviolence.

Keywords.Religious Toleration, Enlightenment, Globalization, Secularity,Colonialism.

JusthowRomanCatholicisRobinsonCrusoe?InthefirstvolumeofDaniel Defoe’s Crusoe trilogy, The Life andStrangeSurprizing Ad-ventures of Robinson Crusoe (1719), the answer to this questionwould seem to be an unambiguous negative. Alone on his island,Crusoe discovers God in an archetypal Protestant fashion through

I castelli di Yale

2

the strong promptings of conscience and reading the bible. Somehave argued, however, that in Defoe’s sequel, The Farther Adven-turesofRobinsonCrusoe (1719), theprotagonistgrowsmore sym-pathetictoRomanCatholicismand,asonecriticcontends,«comesto criticize his own sense of denominational superiority»1. Yet alt-houghCrusoeembracesreligioustoleration,hedoesnotloosenhisattachmenttoProtestantism.Thisattachmentisevidentinthefirstvolume,inwhichCrusoeembracesreligioustolerationaspartofhisgovernance: his island nation «had but three Subjects, and theywereofthreedifferentReligions.MyManFridaywasaProtestant,hisFatherwasaPaganandaCannibal,andtheSpaniardwasaPa-pist: However, I allow’d Liberty of Conscience throughoutmy Do-minions»2.ThispassagefromRobinsonCrusoe isusefulforthinkingabout religious toleration in theFartherAdventures because it im-plicitly frames toleration in Protestant terms. Designating the reli-gion of everyone except himself, Crusoe oddly omits his own reli-giousidentity.HeisProtestant,andit isfromthisreligiousidentitythat he offers the tolerant norm, «Liberty of conscience». Thisnorm,however,reliesonaProtestantdefinitionofreligionthat,likethenarrator,residesinthebackground.Itprovidesthelensthroughwhichreligionandreligiousdifferenceappearandaremanaged.Be-causethisimplicitProtestantnormalsoenablesreligioustolerationin The Farther Adventures, it seems that despite its more sympa-thetic treatment of Roman Catholics, the answer to the question,«Just how Roman Catholic is Robinson Crusoe?» remains a firmnegative.

* Iwould like to thankAnthonyPollock,AlisonConway,andAngelaFlury for

theirhelpfulcommentsonpreviousdraftsofthisessay.1J.C.TRAVER,Defoe,Unigenitus,andthe«Catholic»Crusoe,«SEL.StudiesinEng-

lishLiterature1500-1900»,3,2011,pp.545-563:p.545;cfr.M.E.NOVAK,DanielDe-foe.MasterofFictions.HisLifeandIdeas,NewYork,OxfordUniv.Pr.,2001:«Forthemost part, Defoe’s anti-Catholic attitudes remained a consistent element in histhinking throughout his life, but during the brief interval duringwhich the Crusoevolumeswerewritten,Defoeseemedto favoureventhehatedCatholicChurchasanantidotetoatheismandpaganism».InTheFartherAdventures,Crusoe«ismoretolerantandaccepting»thaninthefirstvolumeandis«forthemostpartawiseandmoderatefigure»(pp.561-562);IngridCREPPEL,TolerationandIdentity.FoundationsinEarlyModernThought,NewYork,Routledge,2003,p.150,arguessimilarly thatCrusoe’s«opennesstoCatholicsashumanbeings[…]isstriking».

2D.DEFOE,RobinsonCrusoe.AnAuthoritativeText,Contexts,Criticism,ed.byM.Shinagel(2ndedition),NewYork,Norton,1994,p.89.

David Alvarez Daniel Defoe’s Protestant Roman Catholics

3

Yet arguingwhether Crusoe is or is not a Roman Catholic – asscintillatingly provocative as that question might be – seems lessimportantthanunderstandinghowTheFartherAdventuresreliesonand constructs a Protestant understanding of religion as a globalconcept.Thisbackgroundconceptionofreligion is theconditionofpossibilitybothforDefoe’sabilitytoimaginereligioustolerationandforthejustificationofreligiousviolence.Suchacombinationmightstrikeoneasunexpected.Today,religioustolerationisusuallycon-sidered amark ofmental progress – a view shared by and partlyowedtoDefoe–whilereligiousintoleranceisviewedasoneoftheworst causes of violence. Crusoe’s religiouslymotivated attacks inThe Farther Adventures, however, follow from the construction ofthe global category of “religion” along Protestant lines that thisnovel depends on and contributes to in its effort to promote reli-gioustoleration.Moreover,Defoe’stextextendsthismutuallycon-stitutive relationship between a tacit Protestant understanding ofreligion and universal religious toleration to other forms of globalorderanddomination.AsColinJagerobserves,«likesecularism,tol-eranceisaboutmanythingsotherthanreligion».Asaformofgov-ernmentality, it involves «the creation of a certain kind of citizen-subject,andaparticulararticulationofjustice,peace,andcivility»3.Byimaginingthemutualinterdependenceofglobalreligionwithaninternationalorder,DefoeconnectsageneralizedProtestantismtocolonialseculargovernanceandaprovidential,emancipatoryorderofinternationaltrade.

Thenovel’srelianceonProtestantismtoimaginethepracticeofreligioustolerationhasrecentlybeenanalyzedbyAndrewWilliams,who argues that The Farther Adventures makes «the theologicalconceptofcharity[…]thekeyresourceinDefoe’srepresentationof

3C.JAGER,CommonQuiet:ToleranceAround1688,«ELH»,79,2012,3,pp.569-

596: p. 590. Cfr. TalalAsad’s observation that «in thismovement [of religion be-comingabstractedanduniversalized]wehavenotmerelyan increase in religioustoleration, certainly notmerely a new scientific discovery, but themutation of aconceptandarangeofsocialpracticeswhichisitselfpartofawiderchangeinthemodern landscape of power and knowledge» (Genealogies of Religion. DisciplineandReasonsofPowerinChristianityandIslam,Baltimore,JohnsHopkinsUniv.Pr.,1993,p.43).

I castelli di Yale

4

tolerance»4.Bypositing this«theologicalvirtue»as thesolution toreligious sectarianism, the «supposedly neutral formalism on Cru-soe’sisland[…]ischaracterizedbyaProtestanthegemony»5.IarguesimilarlythatreligioustolerationreliesonanimplicitProtestantun-derstandingof religion. Charity, however, has its limits inThe Far-ther Adventures. Although Defoe can imagine tolerating RomanCatholics,idolatersarebeyondthepale.Intheircase,Crusoe’schar-ity takes the form of violence. Moreover, the Christian virtue ofcharitywasalso invokedto justifytheoriesofreligious intolerance:endlesslyrepeatedbyAnglicandivinestosupportargumentsagainstreligioustoleration,Augustine’sdefenseoftheimperative,compelleintrare,compel themtoenter,wasrooted intheclaimthat«coer-cive discipline is a charity»6. Defoe’s understanding of charity isclearly different, and his novel participates in redefining the feltmeaning of this theological virtue. In The Farther Adventures, De-foe’sidealofa«communionofcharityandcivility»ismadepossiblebythepracticeofconversation,whichstructurestheformofcharity(i.e., engaging indiscussionsof religiousopinionsoutof a concernforthesalvationofothers)andidentifiesitsobjects(thosewhoun-derstandreligionasasetofbeliefsthatcanbefreelychosen)7.Suchcharity and the «epistemological humility» towards other religionsthat,observesWilliams,marksitspractice,canonlyfindexpressionifreligionisdefinedwithinanepistemologicalframeworkasessen-tiallyamatterofdecidingaboutdoctrines8.Accordingly,forDefoe,«true religion is naturally communicative», both in the sense thatthepropermedium for religious conversion is conversation and inthe sense that conversation is inspired by a contagious spiritual

4A.WILLIAMS, «Differ with Charity»: Religious Tolerance and Secularization in

theFartherAdventuresofRobinsonCrusoe,«ReligionandLiterature»,48,2016,1,pp.27-49.

5Ivi,p.28.6M.GOLDIE,TheTheoryofReligiousIntoleranceinRestorationEngland,inFrom

Persecution toToleration: theGloriousRevolutionandReligion inEngland,ed.byO.P.Grelletal.,Oxford,ClarendonPress,1991,pp.331-368:p.337.Cfr.p.348.

7D. DEFOE, The Shortest Way to Peace and Union, in Political and EconomicWritingsofDanielDefoe,ed.byW.R.Owens,P.N.Furbank,London,PickeringandChatto,2000,vol.3,pp.137-158:p.153.QuotedinWILLIAMS,«DifferwithCharity»,cit.,p.29.

8WILLIAMS,«DifferwithCharity»,cit.,p.35.

David Alvarez Daniel Defoe’s Protestant Roman Catholics

5

love9.DefoedoesnotsimplypreachcharityasaChristianvirtueoftolerant self-restraint but insteadmotivates and channels its prac-tice. Charity finds expressionwithin the limits of engagedbut civiland tolerant conversation about religious opinions, a disciplinarypractice thatboth seeks tomanage religious strifeandmakes reli-gionmoreamenabletoCrusoe’ssovereignpower.

I.Defoe’sProtestantRomanCatholics.

Althoughhedreamsofit,findshis«imaginationranuponitallday»,and«couldtalkofnothingelse»buttheprospectofseeinghis«newplantation in the island, and the colony» he left – where, as hisnephewremindshim,he«oncereignedwithmorefelicitythanmostofyourbrothermonarchs in theworld»–Crusoe’s returntohis is-land inThe FartherAdventures is not triumphant10. In his absence,theEnglishsettlerswhomCrusoeleftbehindhavedegeneratedinto«themostimpudent,hardened,ungoverned,disagreeablevillains»11.«Mischievous to thehighestdegree», theyhave reduced the islandtoHobbesiannature,andlifeisnasty,brutish,andforsome,short12.Tohelprestoreorder,CrusoesurprisinglyturnstotheCatholicSpan-iardsontheislandandtoaFrenchCatholicpriestwhomhehadbe-friendedduringhisreturnjourney,eventhough«first,thathewasaPapist;secondlyaPopishPriest,andthirdly, aFrenchPopishPriest».Despite this trifecta of utter non-Englishness, Crusoe «wonderfullyliked theman», and he becomes a trusted counselor and religiousguide13.

While Crusoe’s friendship and reliance on the priest have sug-gestedtosomethatDefoetakesaRomanCatholic turn inTheFar-therAdventures,thepriestisacuriouskindof«Papist».Hehaslittletruckwithsacramentsand instead ismuchgivento friendlydiscus-sions of religious doctrine andmorality. Conversation is key. «The

9D.DEFOE,The Life and Strange Adventures of Robinson Crusoe. Complete in

Three Parts, Part II, in TheWorks of Daniel Defoe, ed. by G.H.Maynadier, Cam-bridge,Univ.Pr.JohnWilsonandSon,1903,vol.2,p.147.

10Ivi,pp.2,10.11Ivi,p.40.12Ivi,p.64.13Ivi,p.121.

I castelli di Yale

6

firsthourthatIbegantoconverse»withthepriest,Crusoeexplains,«Ifoundreasontodelightexceedingly inhisconversation»; indeed,«hefirstbeganwithmeaboutreligion inthemostobligingmannerimaginable»14.Thepriest likewiseexults inthe«opportunityof freeconversation» occasioned by Crusoe’s «obliging civility»15. Commu-nicationandtruereligionnaturallygotogetherfortheCatholicpriestbecause he understands religion as amatter of opinion. As he ex-plains, his religiousmission is to use his «utmost endeavors, on alloccasions,tobringallthesoulsIcantotheknowledgeofthetruth,and to embrace the Catholic doctrine»16. Although not a Catholic,Crusoe shares this understanding of religion: he assures the priestthathe«shouldnotfindhimselftheworseusedforbeingofadiffer-ent opinion»17. In fact, the priestwas «not the first Catholic»withwhomCrusoe«hadconversedwithoutfallingintoanyinconvenienc-es»18.Holdinghimselfupasamodel,heexplainsthat«ifwedidnotconversewithout anydislike […] it shouldbehis fault, notours»19.Crusoecanconverse«withoutanydislike»withtheRomanCatholicpriestbecausethepracticeofpoliteconversationenableshimtodis-tinguish between persons and their religion as defined in terms ofbelief in propositions and opinions. Defoe’s text thus takes part inwhat J.G.A. Pocock describes as an effort by «nonconformists andtheirconformistallies»toreduce«faithtoopinionandcommuniontoassociation»20.Thenovelimaginesreligioustolerationunderstoodas «liberty of conscience»by furthering this programof Protestantreform.

Conversation and true religion go together not only because –forboththe“Papist”priestandforCrusoe–religionisfundamental-ly about opinions but also because discussing religion prevents itfrom becoming inappropriately passionate. Crusoe declares to thepriestthattheywillconverseaboutreligionwithoutrancoror«car-ryingthequestionstoanyheightindebate»,andthepriestobliging-

14Ibidem.15Ibidem.16Ivi,p.122.17Ibidem.18Ibidem.19Ibidem.20J.G.A.POCOCK,WithintheMargins:TheDefinitionsofOrthodoxy,inTheMar-

ginsofOrthodoxy:HeterodoxWritingandCulturalResponse1660-1750,ed.byR.D.Lund,Cambridge,CambridgeUniv.Pr.,1995,pp.33-53:pp.34,49.

David Alvarez Daniel Defoe’s Protestant Roman Catholics

7

lyagreesthatreligiousdiscussionsarenotabout«cap[ping]princi-ples with every man he conversed with»; instead, he hopes thatCrusoewilltalktohimmore«asagentlemanthanasareligieuse»21.Likewise, in his encounter with «Father Simon», a French RomanCatholic priestwhomhe befriendswhile journeying to China, Cru-soe’s concern that because «we are heretics» the priest cannot«loveus,norkeepuscompanywithanypleasure» isdismissedbythe priest, who explains that «our religion does not divest us ofgoodmanners»22.ObservingthatinalandofpagansevenaHugue-not and a Catholic «may all be Christians at last», Father Simonadds,«weareallgentlemen,andwemayconversesowithoutbeinguneasy to one another»23. In these statements andDefoe’s repre-sentation of their practice, the novel contains religious differencethrough conversations about doctrines kept within the bounds of«decency and good manners» and «easily separated from dis-putes»24.Such«obliging,gentlemen-likebehavior»isrepresentedasbothanexternalcheckonreligionandas itselfa resultof religion:true religion is civilized and civilizing25. As Crusoe remarks, «theChristianreligionalwayscivilizesthepeopleandreformstheirman-ners, where it is received, whether it works saving effects uponthemorno»26.Religionandcivilityarecauseandeffectofonean-other; civility structures the formof religion and religionproducesformsofcivility27.

If the practice of «free conversation» both consolidates themeaningofreligionasprivatebelief–insteadofasaritualorinsti-tutionalpractice–andpromotes theethicalcapacity toholdopin-ions about religion at a critical distance, it is also the mediumthrough which religion finds public expression and is the only ac-ceptable instrumentof conversion.As the “Papist” priest explains,«wethatareChrist’sservants[…]cangonofurtherthantoexhort

21DEFOE,TheLifeandStrangeAdventuresofRobinsonCrusoe,cit.,p.122.22Ivi,p.251.23Ibidem.24Ivi,p.122.25Ivi,p.123.26Ivi,p.236.27These forms includenotonlybeing«verycourteousandcivil in theirman-

ners»butalsogoodtradingpractices:Crusoenotesthatduetotheevangelicalef-fortsofJesuitpriests,theinhabitantsofFormosa«dealtveryfairlyandpunctuallywithusinalltheiragreementsandbargains»(ibidem).

I castelli di Yale

8

and instruct»28. Notably, when one of the reformed Englishmenseeks toconverthis«savagewife»,Defoepresents theirconversa-tion in the formofadialogue29.Yeteven thoughconversation isadisciplinary practice for regulating religious passions, Crusoe doesnot endorse a lukewarmChristianity. Conversions in the novel aremarked by tears, «great earnestness», prostration, and passionateembraces30. Crusoe describes one such scene as «themost affect-ing,andyetthemostagreeable,thateverIsawinmywholelife»31.Aswe have seen, Crusoe is also eager to discuss religionwith thepriest, fromwhose zealheembracesmore fully the«maxim» that«the Christian knowledge ought to be propagated by all possiblemeans,andonallpossibleoccasions»32.Farfromshuttingdowndis-cussionaboutreligion,Defoe’sconceptionofreligionrequiresit.

If zeal for the salvation of others inspires earnest communica-tion,theriskofreligiousstrifesucheffortsmightcreateismanagedbythetransformationofreligionintoopinionsandthroughthedis-cipline of civil conversation. In addition, religion conceptualized asbeliefcreatesaffectivebondsbetweenbelieversbasedontheirmu-tualrespectforsincerebeliefs.Crusoe’stolerantcharity, forexam-ple,isinspiredbythezealofRomanCatholicswho«haveafirmbe-lief» that the uncivilized heathens they seek to convert «shall besaved, and that they are the instruments of it»33. Crusoe declaresthat«itwouldbeagreatwantofCharity, ifweshouldnothaveagoodopinionof their zeal»,who«undergonotonly the fatigueofthe voyage, and hazards of living in such places, but oftentimesdeath itself, with the most violent tortures, for the sake of thiswork»34. The Roman Catholic priests’ zealous efforts to reach andconvert heathensmerit the charity of Protestants because, as theresultof«afirmbelief»,itissincere.Likewise,the“Papist”priestismovedbythezealofanEnglishProtestanttoconverthiswife,whoisa«poorignorantsavage»; indeed,thepriestwould«rejoiceifallthe savages of America were brought […] to pray to God, though

28Ivi,p.144.29Ivi,p.145;cfr.pp.152-159.30Ivi,p.143.31Ivi,p.146.32Ivi,p.131.33Ivi,pp.249-250.34Ivi,p.250.

David Alvarez Daniel Defoe’s Protestant Roman Catholics

9

theywerealltobeProtestants»35.ThepriesttrustsGod«tofurtherilluminate them […] and bring them into the pale of His Church,whenHeshouldseegood»36.Crusoeunderstandsthepriest’sopen-nesstoProtestantismasasignoftheuniversalityofthepriest’sre-ligion: «Astonished at the sincerity and temper of this truly piouspriest», Crusoe thinks that «if such a temper was universal, wemightbeallCatholicChristians,whateverchurchorparticularpro-fessionwejoinedto,orjoinedin…»37.Headds,however,thatwhilethe priest «thought that the like charitywouldmake us all Catho-lics»,hebelieved«theywouldallsoonbeProtestants»38.

Onemightarguethatthebasisforthis«universaltemper»isthepriest’sinsistenceondistinguishing«farbetweenaProtestantandapagan», a distinction Crusoe also emphatically shares39. They forgetheir sharedChristian identity inopposition topagan religion:bothseethemselvesasclosertotruereligionthanpagans,andbotharepleased to see heathens converted to some form of Christianity,whetherRomanCatholicorProtestant.Crusoeandthepriestshareareligioussinceritythatinspirestheirmutualcharitabletolerance.Andyet for these two «Catholic Christians», religion has a Protestantform.Crusoewarns thepriest that«ifyoushouldpreachsuchdoc-trineinSpainorItaly,theywouldputyouintotheInquisition»40.Un-like Defoe’s “Papist” priest, in Spain and Italy the Roman CatholicChurchdefinesreligionnotintermsofindividualsholdingimmaterialbeliefs but inmore corporeal, institutional forms that countenancebodily torture. The priest rejects such «severity,» which he statesdoesnotmakethem«thebetterChristians»,since«thereisnohere-sy in too much charity»41. For the “Papist” priest, zeal should nottaketheformoftortureorforcedconversionbutofrespectfulcon-versationanimatedbycharity.Therecanbenoheresyinsuchcharitybecauseitrespectsanindividual’ssincerereligiousbeliefs,aswellastheirautonomyandcapacitytochoosethosebeliefs.ThisargumentismuchthesameasthatfoundinJohnLocke’sALetterConcerningToleration (1689): the recognition of religious sincerity in others is

35Ivi,p.149.36Ibidem.37Ibidem.38Ibidem.39Ivi,p.148.40Ivi,p.150.41Ibidem.

I castelli di Yale

10

thebasisforabondofmutualcharity,whichbindsbelieverstogeth-erdespitedifferencesinreligiousopinion;moreover,intheformofacharitable zeal for the salvationof others, such sincerity alsomoti-vatescivilizedevangelicalconversations42.Defoe,however,doesnotsimplyrepeatLockesincehisnovelgloballyextendsthisformofreli-gioustolerationandtheProtestantconceptualizationofreligionthatenablesit.

One could also argue that Defoe’s toleration goes beyondLocke’sbecausehecanimaginetoleratingRomanCatholics43.Aswehave seen,however, thepriests inTheFartherAdventuresarenotvery Roman Catholic. Crusoe sums up his admiration for the “Pa-pist”priestbydeclaringthathehas«allthezeal,alltheknowledge,allthesincerityofaChristian,withouttheerrorofaRomanCatho-lic,» imagininghimtobe«suchaclergymanas theRomanbishopswerebeforetheChurchofRomeassumedspiritualsovereigntyoverthe consciences of men»44. Condemning Catholicism in Protestanttermsas«spiritualsovereigntyovertheconsciencesofmen»,Defoeinsists on religious freedom as «liberty of conscience». As a re-formedRomanCatholic (i.e.,Protestant), thepriest shares thisun-derstandingofreligion.Indeed,whilethenovelidentifiesthepriestasRomanCatholic,itrepresentshisreligioninProtestantterms:hebelieves in doctrines, considers himself a «private Christian», andcharitably respects and seeks the salvation of others through civilconversation45. Whatever might be distinctively Roman Catholicabout his religion – sacraments, ritual, collective worship – iserased.Crusoe, forexample,praiseshim fornotoffensivelycallingon«theBlessedVirgin,ormention[ing]St.Jago,orhisguardianan-gel»46.Whenthe“Papist”priestbaptizesoneofthenativewomen,

42MysummaryofLocke’sargumentisinfluencedbyTeresaBejan’sinterpreta-

tionofhisLetter inMereCivility:DisagreementandtheLimitsofToleration,Cam-bridge,HarvardUniv.Pr.,2017,pp.112-143;myfocusonLocke’scommitmenttoreligionpubliclycirculating informsthatallowforemotionaldistancefollowsE.A.PRITCHARD,ReligioninPublic:Locke’sPoliticalTheology,PaloAlto,StanfordUniv.Pr.,2013.

43ForLocke,RomanCatholicscouldnotbetolerated.Vd.J.LOCKE,ALetterCon-cerningToleration,inJohnLocke:ALetterConcerningTolerationandOtherWritings,ed.byM.Goldie,Indianapolis,LibertyFund,2010,pp.1-67:pp.50-51.

44DEFOE,TheLifeandStrangeAdventuresofRobinsonCrusoe,cit.,pp.160-161.45Ivi,p.122.46Ivi,p.136.

David Alvarez Daniel Defoe’s Protestant Roman Catholics

11

it is not represented as a sacrament but as a joyful celebration ofherfreechoicebasedon«asurprisingdegreeofunderstanding»47.Sheisconvertedbyenteringinto«discourse»withCrusoe,whoactsasaninterpreterforthepriest–afinereminderofhowthenovelistranslatingRomanCatholicismintoamoremodern,Protestantformof religion–whogaveher«suchasermonaswasneverpreachedby a Popish priest»48.Moreover, the priest promises to Crusoe toperformthebaptism«inamannerthatI[Crusoe]shouldnotknowbyitthathewasaRomanCatholicmyselfifIhadnotknownitbe-fore»49.Whenthepriestappearsforthebaptism,hisvestmentsaregenerically clerical: «a black vest, something like a cassock,with asashroundit»,whichmadehim«notlookveryunlikeaminister»50.Far from undermining «the habitual identification of Crusoe’s reli-gious experience with Protestant spirituality», The Farther Adven-turesreshapesallformsoflegitimatereligioninaProtestantmold51.

II.ConstructingSecularity:ImaginingaGlobalOrder.

Recent revisionist scholarship on secularism has argued, inMichaelWarner’s words, that «the consolidation of “religion” as a specialformofbeliefandexperience»isaconstitutiveelementof«modernsecularityintheEuro-AmericanNorthAtlanticandin[…]colonialcon-texts»52.«Secularity»differsfrom«secularism»inthattheformerre-ferstothehistoricalconditionsofpossibility,thebackgroundunder-

47Ivi,p.161.48Ivi,p.160.49Ivi,p.161.50Ivi,pp.138-139.51TRAVER,Defoe,Unigenitus, and the«Catholic»Crusoe, cit., p. 545.Williams

also argues that the novel points to the «lingering hegemony of Protestantthought» behind the ostensible neutrality of liberal religious toleration, but thismattersforhimbecauseitmakesChristianitytepidandabstract(WILLIAMS,«Differwith Charity», cit., pp. 42-44). I examine instead how this hegemony structuresglobalizationandjustifiesviolence.

52M.WARNER,Was antebellum America secular? in http://blogs.ssrc.org/tif/-2012/10/02/was-antebellum-america-secular/. On the historical construction ofsecularity,vd.T.ASAD,FormationsoftheSecular,PaloAlto,StanfordUniv.Pr.,2003;C.TAYLOR,ASecularAge,Cambridge,TheBelknapPr.ofHarvardUniv.Pr.,2007.

I castelli di Yale

12

standing, thatenables thedistinctionbetweenthe religiousand thesecular.Forthepurposesofthisessay,twoelementsofCharlesTay-lor’sanalysisofthehistoricalconstructionofsecularitythroughChris-tianityareespeciallyusefulforunderstandingDefoe’sglobaldeploy-mentof«religion»inTheFartherAdventures.First,theformationofsecularity is partly the result of the long history of reform in LatinChristendom,oneeffectofwhichisthedevelopmentofthemodern«buffered self»53. These reform efforts generated a growing confi-denceintheself’spowertoordertheworldanditselfasadisciplined,instrumentalagent.Withastrongersenseofself-possessionandofasharperdividebetweenmindandbody, thebufferedsubjectivityofthedisciplinedindividualcantakeadistancefromitsfeelingsanddis-engagefromoutsideforces.Insteadofa«porousself»vulnerabletoexternalforcesthatcaninvadeorpossessit,thebufferedselfis«in-vulnerable,asmasterofthemeaningsofthingsforit»54.Accordingly,forthebufferedself,anyreligion–andeventuallyreligiosityitself–isachoice.Suchaselfcandistanceitselffrom«religion»,whichposesnothreattoself-possessionandisinstead,inLocke’swords,«thevol-untaryandsecretchoiceof themind»55.ThegeneralizedProtestantunderstanding of religion in The Farther Adventures largely accordswithandreinscribessuchabufferedself56.

In its efforts to imagine successful colonization, the novel de-ploys this conceptionof the self globally. If a successfulplantationcolony requires religious toleration to keep the peace and to pre-sent a united Christian front for converting pagans, it also needsself-controlled,disciplinedcolonists.Perhapspredictably,thesecol-onists areexemplifiedbyRomanCatholic Spaniards, oneofwhomgovernstheisland,aswellastwoformerEnglish«rogues»whohavebeenreformedbyplantationlife.Asideal«soberandreligiouspeo-

53TAYLOR,ASecularAge,cit.,p.26,cfr.pp.29-41,131-142,300-307.54Ivi,p.38.55J. LOCKE, Essay Concerning Toleration, in Essay Concerning Toleration and

OtherWritings on LawandPolitics 1667-1683,ed. by J.R.Milton,Oxford,OxfordUniv.Pr.,2010,p.34.

56B.C.Cooneyidentifiesthissameself–whichC.Taylordesignatesthe«punc-tualself»inhisearlierSourcesoftheSelf:TheMakingoftheModernIdentity,Cam-bridge,HarvardUniv.Pr.,1989,p.160–asapreconditionforreligioustolerationinthefirstvolumeoftheCrusoeTrilogyinConsideringRobinsonCrusoe’s“LibertyofConscience” in anAge of Terror,«College English», 69, 2007, 3, pp. 197-215: pp.199-200.

David Alvarez Daniel Defoe’s Protestant Roman Catholics

13

ple,»theyhavebeenlivingontheislandinCrusoe’sabsencealongwith three «brutish andbarbarous» English «reprobates»57.UnliketheselazyEnglishmen,«whocouldnotwork,andwouldnotwork,»theSpaniardsandreformedEnglishmodeltheirplanningandlaboronCrusoe’soriginal colonizationof the island58. Testifying forCru-soetothegeneralmaximthat«thediligentlivedwellandcomfort-ably,andtheslothfulhardandbeggarly;andso,Ibelieve,generallyspeaking, it isallover theworld», theCatholicSpaniardsandtheirdisciplined English partners are poster-boys for Max Weber’sTheProtestantEthicandtheSpiritofCapitalism59.Andunlikethetumul-tuousEnglishmen,whoare«sofurious,sodesperate,andsoidle»,theSpaniardsarepraisedfortheircompassion,«temperandcalm-ness»60.TheyareconstantlymendingrelationsbetweenthefeudingEnglishmen, and show more compassion than the English to the«savages».TheirbehaviorpromptsCrusoetoremark,

lettheaccountsofSpanishcruelty inMexicoandPerubewhattheywill,Inevermetwith[…]menofanynationwhatsoever,inanyforeigncountry,whoweresouniversallymodest,temperate,virtuous,soverygood-humored,andsocourteous,astheseSpaniards[…]noinhumani-ty, no barbarity, no outrageous passions, and yet all of themmen ofgreatcourageandspirit61.

With their calm, temperatedemeanor,Crusoe’s Spaniardshavethe discipline and emotional constitution required for a successfulplantercolony.Moreover,plantation life–asthereformedEnglishroguesalsodemonstrate–promotesaprudent,temperatecharac-ter. If the Spaniards had pursued colonization asmodeled by Cru-soe,thentheywouldnotbeknownforviolentbutcherybutforex-ceptional prudence, gentlemanly behavior, and compassion. LikeCortezinJohnDryden’sTheIndianEmperor(1665),theSpaniardsinDefoe’stextaremodelsforEnglishcolonialism.

Asthisexamplealsoshows,Defoelinksthebuffered,disciplinedself toaprovidential,beneficentmoralorder.ThesecondelementofTaylor’sconceptionofsecularitythatTheFartherAdventurescon-tributes to and builds upon, this ordermanifests God’s design for

57DEFOE,TheLifeandStrangeAdventuresofRobinsonCrusoe,cit.,pp.176,73,79.58Ivi,p.70.59Ivi,p.81.60Ivi,pp.64,83.61Ivi,pp.82-83.

I castelli di Yale

14

humanflourishinginthisworld.AssermonslikeJohnTillotson’sThePrecepts of Christianity Not Grievous and TheWisdom of Religiondeclared, «Religion and Happiness, our Duty and our Interest, arereally but one and the same thing considered under several no-tions»62.Christianity is increasinglyunderstood intermsofdiscern-ingtherulesforthisdivineplanandfulfillingthem63.ForTaylor,thedevelopmentwithinChristianityofthisimpersonal,immanentmoralordercontributestocreatingthepossibilityforourmodern,secularage. I am less concerned, however, with this admittedly epic andironic historical change thanwith howDefoe’s contribution to theformationofsecularityislinkedtohisimaginationofaglobalorder.Hisvisionof coloniesandcommerce inTheFartherAdventures re-quires disciplining Christians and pagans into proper religious sub-jectswhocanbepluggedintoaprovidentiallydesignedglobalorderthat includes religious toleration, plantation colonies, and interna-tionaltrade.

HighlightinghowTheFartherAdventuresimaginesthisglobalor-der through the formation of secularity complicates what JohnRichetti calls its «secular cosmopolitanism», since this cosmopoli-tanism is structured, enabled, and limited by a particular under-standing of religion64. Indeed, the global order and religion in De-foe’stextarerepresentedasmutuallyreinforcing.Thenovelnoton-ly participates in the long history of Christian reform through itstransformationofreligionintoagenericProtestantismbutalsopor-trays this conception of religion as strengthened by the particularformsofgovernanceandsocialorderthataremadepossiblebyreli-gionsoconceived.AsSabaMahmoodobserves,«the religiousandtheseculararenotopposedideologies[…]butinterdependentand

62J.TILLOTSON,PrefacetoJ.WILKINS,OfthePrinciplesandDutiesofNaturalReli-

gion.TwoBooks,London,PrintedforR.Chiswell[etc.],17106,sigA6r.Similarly,inconversingwithhissavagedomesticpartneraboutChristianity,oneoftheEnglish-menexplains thatGod«teaches and commandsnothingbutwhat is good, right-eous,andholy,and tends tomakeusperfectlygood,aswellasperfectlyhappy»(DEFOE,TheLifeandStrangeAdventuresofRobinsonCrusoe,cit.,p.115).

63ForTaylor’sanalysisofhowtheChristiandevelopmentof«providentialde-ism»madepossiblean impersonalmoralorderthatcouldallowforasecularper-spective,vd.TAYLOR,ASecularAge,cit.,pp.221-295.

64«Cosmopolitanism»alsoseemsaproblematictermgivenCrusoe’sfrequentviolentinteractionswithnon-Europeans.J.RICHETTI,TheLifeofDanielDefoe:ACriti-calBiography,Malden,BlackwellPublishing,2005,p.217.

David Alvarez Daniel Defoe’s Protestant Roman Catholics

15

necessarily linked in their mutual transformation and historicalemergence»65.Mahmood’s claimhereabouthow formsof seculargovernance seek «not somuch to banish religion from the publicdomain but to reshape the form it takes, the subjectivities it en-dorses,andtheepistemologicalclaimsitcanmake»marksaninter-section between Taylor’s analysis of secularity and work by TalalAsadandothersthatexamineshowmodernformsofpoliticalsecu-larismaresolidifiedandmaintainedthroughtheconceptionofreli-gionthatenablessecularity66.Bedeviledbythedifficultyofarticulat-ingthereligiousandsecularinDefoe’stexts,scholarshipmightben-efit from considering how the concept of religion intersects bothwiththeformationofsecularityandwithformsofpoliticalandethi-calsecularisminwaysthataremutuallyreinforcing67.

For example, aswehave already seen, religious toleration as aformofgovernance ismadepossibleby therepresentationof reli-gion in Protestant terms. Crusoe’s authority as a tolerant «gover-nor»isalsoenabledbyandreinforcesthisunderstandingofreligion.Bydefiningitintermsofacceptableconversationandzeal,thedis-ciplinarydiscourseof civildiscussionmakes religioneasier forCru-soetocontrol. Indeed,shouldthisdisciplinarypracticefail towardoffthedangerofreligiousstrife,Crusoeretainsthepowertorestrictreligiousexpression.As the“Papist”priestexplains,he ishappy to«discourseuponreligioussubjects»and«defendhisownopinions»but only with Crusoe’s leave, since he is «here under [Crusoe’s]permission»andis«bound[…]tobeunderyourgovernment»68.Ac-cordingly, religious tolerationdependsnotonlyon thebackgroundunderstandingofreligioninTheFartherAdventuresbutalsoontheformsofgovernanceandorderthatcanbeimaginedinrelationshiptothisdefinitionofreligion,adefinitionthattheseformsofgovern-ancealsoreinforce.

The confluence of the aims of «religion» and of a universalizedmoralandlegalordercanalsobeseeninthenovel’stransformation

65S.MAHMOOD,Religious Reason and SecularAffect: An IncommensurableDi-

vide?, in IsCritiqueSecular?Blasphemy, Injury,andFreeSpeech,ed.byT.Asadetal.,Berkeley,Univ.ofCaliforniaPr.,2009,pp.64-100:p.64.

66S.MAHMOOD,Secularism, Hermeneutics, and Empire: The Politics of IslamicReformation,«PublicCulture»,18,2006,2,pp.323-347:p.326.

67Foranoverviewof thisbedevilment,vd.W.SCHMIDGEN,TheMetaphysicsofRobinsonCrusoe,«ELH»,83,2016,1,pp.101-126:pp.101-102.

68DEFOE,TheLifeandStrangeAdventuresofRobinsonCrusoe,cit.,p.122.

I castelli di Yale

16

of the Roman Catholic sacrament ofmarriage into a legal contractthatsupportsabenevolentprovidentialorder.Whileyetagaincon-versing,thepriestadmonishesCrusoeforneglectingsomethingcru-cial to «the prosperity of [his] new colony»69. He explains thatthough they differ in «doctrinal articles», he believes there are a«fewpropositions»and«generalprinciples»thatheandCrusoecanagreeon:Godexistsandhehasgivensome«statedgeneralrulesforourserviceandobedience»70. Inparticular, thepriestdeclares,«letour different religions be what they will, this general principle isreadilyownedbyusall,thattheblessingofGoddoesnotordinarilyfollow presumptuous sinning against his command»71. The priestpointsout,however, that theEnglishmenon the islandarecohabi-tatingandhavingchildrenwith«savage»women,«andyetarenotmarried to them after any stated legalmatter, as the laws of Godandmanrequire»72.Hedeclares–inveryun-RomanCatholicterms–thatthe«sacramentofmatrimony[…]consistsnotonlyinthemutu-alconsentofthepartiestotakeoneanotherasmanandwife,butinthe formal and legal obligation […] the contract» between them73.Having reduced the sacrament ofmarriage tomutual consent andcontract, the priest urges Crusoe to let himmarry the Englishmenandthenativewomen.

Influenced less by the Pope than by Tillotson’s theology, thepriest’sgeneralreligiousprinciplethat«theblessingofGoddoesnotordinarilyfollowpresumptuoussinningagainsthiscommand»isuni-versalized throughmarriage as a «written contract signed by bothmenandwoman,andbyallthewitnessespresent,whichallthelawsofEuropewoulddecreetobevalid»74.But if religion isshapingthelaw–itisareligiousnormthatthatthepriestinvokes–thelawisal-so shaping religion insofar as it definesmarriageas a contract thatGodispredisposedtoblessthroughanatural,providentialmoralor-der.Theblessingmarriageprovidesinthenovelisthatitcivilizesandleads toprosperity.Withoutmarriage,«neither families [would]be

69Ivi,p.124.70Ivi,pp.125-126.71Ivi,p.126.72Ivi,p.127.73Ibidem.74Ivi,p.129.

David Alvarez Daniel Defoe’s Protestant Roman Catholics

17

keptentire, or inheritancesbe settledby legal descent»75.BecausemarriageisthuspartofGod’sgeneralmoralorder,allgovernmentshaveaninterestinpromotingitanduniversallyrecognizingit,andallpriestsarereligiouslymotivatedtodothesame.Throughthecatego-ryof“religion,”DefoetakesthelegalmeaningofEuropeanmarriage–andaprovidentialmoralorder–global.

III. Global Religion and Providential Passions: Colonialism andTrade.

LiketheSpaniardsonhisisland,Crusoevaluesthecalmtemperofa«bufferedself».Heisdeeplysuspiciousofstrongpassions,whetherfearfulorjoyful.Forexample,twoweeksintohisreturnvoyage,heencounters survivors in the open oceanwho had fled from a shipthathadcaught fireandexploded.Havinghadnohopeofdeliver-ance, those rescuedareoverwhelmedby«inexpressible joy». Cru-soerecounts:

Itisimpossibleformetoexpresstheseveralgestures,thestrangeec-stasies, thevarietyofpostureswhichthesepoordeliveredpeopleraninto to express the joy of their souls at so unexpected a deliverance.Griefandfearareeasilydescribed:sighs,tears,groans,andaveryfewmotionsoftheheadandhands,makeupthesumofitsvariety;butanexcess of joy, a surprise of joy, has a thousand extravagancies in it.Therewere some in tears; some raging and tearing themselves, as iftheyhadbeeninthegreatestagoniesofsorrow;somestarkravinganddownright lunatic; some ran about the ship stampingwith their feet,otherswringing their hands; somewere dancing, some singing, somelaughing, more crying, many quite dumb, not able to speak a word;others sick and vomiting; several swooning and ready to faint; and afewwerecrossingthemselvesandgivingGodthanks76.

Crusoe contrasts the «several gestures» and «variety of pos-tures» that an «excess of joy» produces with the «very few mo-tions»ofthebodythatmark«griefandfear».Witha«thousandex-travagancies in it», joymanifests itself in extremes and cannot al-waysbedistinguishedfrom«thegreatestagoniesofsorrow».With

75Ivi,p.153.DisputesaboutthetransferofpropertysparkthefeudbetweenthecolonistsonDefoe’sisland(vd.pp.44-57;cfr.p.165).

76Ivi,pp.17-18.

I castelli di Yale

18

«somesinging,somelaughing»,others«tearingatthemselves»and«downright lunatic», thepassiontakespossessionofpeopleand isexpressed through wild, uncontrollable behaviors. Crusoe com-pounds the diversity of gestures and postures by noting that theyappeared«inoneandthesameperson»:

Theseextravagancesdidnotshowthemselves inthatdifferentman-ner I have mentioned, in different persons only; but all the varietywouldappear, inashortsuccessionofmoments, inoneandthesameperson.Amanthatwesawthisminutedumb,and,as itwere, stupidandconfounded,wouldthenextminutebedancingandhallooing likeanantic;andthenextmomentbetearinghishair,orpullinghisclothestopieces, and stamping themunderhis feet likeamadman; ina fewmomentsafter thatwewouldhavehimall in tears, thensick, swoon-ing, and, had not immediate help been had, he would in a fewmo-mentshavebeendead77.

Highlightingthe«variety»offormsthatjoytakesinthesepassag-es,WolframSchmidgenhasrecentlysuggestedthattheyrevealDe-foe’sbasicsenseoftheworld,whichhedescribesasametaphysicsof«infinitevariety»that«unsettlesthedeterminatestructuresofbe-ingtofosteranenlargedsenseofpossibilityandtransformation»78.SchmidgenfindsinDefoe’sstyleawayof«unsettlingestablishedas-sumptions» and «the narrowness of our conceptions». Yet if thesepassagesattempttoexpandourunderstandingofthepassionofjoy,theydonotseemtocelebratethesurvivors’«antic»and«starkrav-ing»behaviorortheirpossessionbyapassion«theywerenotabletomaster»79. Instead, Crusoe keeps his distance, praising the self-controlofthose«veryfew»whocrossedthemselves,gavethankstoGod,and«werecomposedandseriousintheirjoy»80.

Based on this encounter, Crusoewarns his readers of the «ex-travaganciesofthepassions»:for«ifanexcessofjoycancarrymenouttosuchalengthbeyondthereachoftheirreason,whatwillnottheextravagancesofanger,rage,andaprovokedmindcarryusto?

77Ivi,pp.18-19.78SCHMIDGEN,TheMetaphysicsofRobinsonCrusoe,cit.,p.104.SCHMIDGENcon-

nectedthismetaphysicstoreligioustolerationinTheOntologyofTolerance,plena-ry lecture,TheFifthBiennialMeetingoftheDefoeSociety,ToleranceandIntoler-anceintheAgeofDefoe,NewHaven,September9,2017.

79DEFOE,TheLifeandStrangeAdventuresofRobinsonCrusoe,cit.,p.18.80Ibidem.

David Alvarez Daniel Defoe’s Protestant Roman Catholics

19

And,indeed,hereIsawreasonforkeepinganexceedingwatchoverourpassionsofeverykind, aswell thoseof joyand satisfactionasthose of sorrow and anger»81. The dangers posed by the passionsappearinseveralpassagesthroughoutthenovel,promptingCrusoeat one point to translate a Spanish proverb about the debilitatingpower of grief. Perhaps no great poet, Crusoewrites in lines thatone may still find inescapably memorable that, «In trouble to betroubled,|Istohaveyourtroubledoubled»82.Notsurprisingly,an-otherreasonCrusoeadmirestheFrench,“Papist”priest,whocomesfromanation«allowedtobemorevolatile[and]morepassionate»thanothers,isforhis«greatcommandofhisemotions»83.Atrans-national ideal,Defoe’s versionof a buffered self provides amodelintegral,religioussubjectivitythatisalsotheproperselffortemper-ate,productivecolonialplanters.

Crusoe’s investment in this ideal, however, is qualified by keymomentsinwhichheappearsovertakenbyhispassions.Forexam-ple,afterleavinghisislandtoembarkonacommercialadventuretothe east that takes him toMadagascar, Bengal, China, andRussia,amongotherplaces,CrusoemeetsaRussianprincebanishedtoSi-beria.Recountinghislife,Crusoementionsthatonhisislandhewasa«morepowerfulprince»thanthe«CzarofMuscovy»84.Theprincemarvels thatCrusoewouldever leavehis island.«Withasigh»,heexplains that «the true greatness of lifewas to bemaster of our-selves… hewould not have exchanged such a life as [Crusoe’s] tohave been Czar ofMuscovy»85. Comparing Crusoe’s former life ontheislandtohisownbanishmentfromcourt,theprinceenlightenshisguest:«theheightofhumanwisdomwas tobringour tempersdown toour circumstances,and tomakea calmwithin,under theweight of the greatest stormwithout»86. Expandingon these stoicadmonitions, theprincedecries thevenalityofworldlydesiresandpraises the mind’s self-sufficiency, which is «perfectly capable ofmaking a felicity for itself, fully satisfying to itself»87. In response,Crusoe declares that he admires this «truly greatman […] so sup-

81Ivi,p.21.82Ivi,p.110.83Ivi,p.20.84Ivi,p.303.85Ivi,p.304.86Ibidem.87Ibidem.

I castelli di Yale

20

portedby religion»andextolshimasa«great conqueror; for thathe that has got a victory over his ownexorbitant desires, andhastheabsolutedominionoverhimself,whosereasonentirelygovernshiswill,iscertainlygreaterthanhethatconquersacity»88.Andyetdespitehisadmirationforthismodelofperfectself-controlandfe-licity, Crusoe does not remainwith the prince; instead, he followshisdesiretotradeinArchangel.Heofferstheprinceachancetoes-capewithhim,butalthoughstronglytemptedtheprincedecidestostayandenjoyhis«absolutedominion»and«fully-satisfying»felici-tyinexile.

It never occurs to Crusoe to give up his life as amerchant andpracticetheprince’sChristianstoicism.Pursuinghis«impetuousde-sire» forwanderingandwealth,he isopentobeingguidedby the«secret ends of Divine Power in thus permitting us to be hurrieddown the stream of our own desires»89. Crusoe’s impulses to goabroadareprovidentialpromptsthatworktoalignhimwithanor-derofglobaltrade.AsanEnglishmerchantexplainsinurgingCrusoetojoinhim,«forwhatshouldwestandstillfor?Thewholeworldisinmotion,rollingroundandround,allthecreaturesofGod,heaven-ly bodies and earthly, are busy and diligent; why should we beidle?»90. For Defoe’s «buffered self» to discern and plug into theworld’sbeneficent,providentialorderasmanifestedinglobalcom-merce,itmustremainopentothepromptingsofdesire,ifnotpos-sessionbythepassions.

Just as he had linked colonial planters to a providential order,Defoe now connects this order to merchants. But how to under-stand the apparent contradiction between these two providentialvisionsoforder?Betweenthemorebufferedselfoftheformerandthemoreporousselfofthelatter?Contextualizingthesequestionsin relation to the formationof secularitymakes it possible to ana-lyzethebufferedselfandtheglobalorderofmutualbenefit intheprocessof theirconstruction. InTheFartherAdventures, forexam-ple,thebeneficentprovidentialorderoftheworldcanbediscernednotonlythroughcarefulattentionto itsworkingsbutalsothroughthe intimationsof thisorderprovidedbythepassions.Becausehis

88Ivi,pp.307,306.89Ivi,pp.187-188.90Ivi,p.214;cfr.p.11;Crusoe’swifealsoexplainshiswanderlustinproviden-

tialterms(p.4).

David Alvarez Daniel Defoe’s Protestant Roman Catholics

21

worldisnotyetimmanent,Crusoecanalignhimselfwiththisorderthrough the providential prompts of desire. More generally, ap-proachingEnlightenmenttextsthroughsecularityallowsustoside-step questions aboutwhetherworks such asRobinson Crusoe arereally“religious”or“secular”–notbecausereligionwasaninescap-able part of eighteenth-century life but because such texts areworkingtomakethisdistinctionpossible.Intheprocessofdoingso,moreover, the transformation of religion that is part of the con-structionofsecularitycanbedeployedbysuchtextstoconceiveofvariable formsof governanceand conceptionsof social order (i.e.,different versions of political and ethical secularism). The FartherAdventures, forexample, imagines religious toleration,colonialism,andglobaltradethroughtheformationofsecularity,particularlyitsgeneralized Protestant conception of global religion. It is throughthis category that the world is apprehended. It also enables thedramatic shift in thenovel from thepracticeof colonialismon theislandtoCrusoe’spursuitofadventureandinternationaltrade.

This turn in thenarrative is another versionof the shift inEng-land from landed to mobile property, from an aristocratic to acommercialsociety91.ThecomparisontheprincemakesbetweenhisbanishmentinSiberiaandCrusoe’slifeonhisislandrecallsandcon-trastswithCrusoe’sinabilitytoremain«amerecountrygentleman»on his «little farm» in England or even a «monarch» on his islandplantation92.While Crusoe admires the self-sufficiency of the stoicaristocratorcolonialplanter,globalmercantilismisasuperiorethi-calorderbecauseofitsreligiouscosmopolitanism(i.e.,universalre-ligious toleration,world evangelization, enrichment through trade,productionofknowledge,andfreedom).ThetransformationoftheglobalprovidentialorderinTheFartherAdventuresismadepossiblebydifferentreligiousnarratives.Religiouspeoplecanincludesoberandself-controlledclerics,planters,andaristocrats,butalsoachar-acter like Crusoe, whose desires plunge him providentially into a«fortunate fall» that eventually leaves him spiritually redeemed,

91Onthisshift,vd.J.G.A.POCOCK,TheMachiavellianMoment:FlorentinePoliti-cal Thought and theAtlantic Republican Tradition, Princeton, PrincetonUniv. Pr.,1975,pp.423-505;onDefoe’sprivilegingof«theoverseasand theurban»at theexpense of the rural, vd. S. ARAVAMUDAN, Defoe, Commerce, and Empire, in TheCambridge Companion to Daniel Defoe, ed. by J. Richetti, Cambridge, CambridgeUniv.Pr.,2009,pp.45-63:p.60.

92DEFOE,TheLifeandStrangeAdventuresofRobinsonCrusoe,cit.,pp.5-6.

I castelli di Yale

22

emancipatedfromanoldersocialorder,andrich93.Religionisaca-pacious enough category in The Farther Adventures to structureCrusoe’s spiritual and social transgressionand redemption,aswellashisshiftfromacolonisttoamerchant.

TheRussianprincehimselfseemstoviewhisreligiousstoicismasananachronistic,aristocraticvirtue.Althoughhedecides tostay inexile,hedoesnotwishthisforhisson,andsoheasksCrusoetoaidhisson’sescape.Crusoeagrees,andwhenhedepartsfromthecity,«so far out of the road of commerce», he brings the prince’s sonwith him. The son’s apprenticeship as amerchant, however, goespoorly. His aristocratic sensibility gets in the way. For example,whenattackedbya largebandof thieves,Crusoeurgedanescapefromtheirattackersduringthenight,but«theyounglord,asgallantas ever fleshed showed itself, was for fighting to the last»94. ThearistocraticyounglordiseventuallypersuadedbyCrusoetogiveupanunrealistic senseofhonorand–as«hewas toowiseaman tolovefightingforthesakeof it»–theyeventuallysneaktosafety95.Nonetheless, intheend,theyoungmangivesupontradeandset-tlesatthecourtofVienna.Defoe’sworldofmerchantsleavesaris-tocrats,stoicorotherwise,onthesidelines.

IV.GlobalReligion,Freedom,andViolence.

Crusoe gives himself over to his passions more fully when he de-stroys the idol Cham-Chi-Thaungu. If Crusoe’s mercantilist desirescanbeincorporatedandjustifiedwithinageneralizedProtestantism,inthisinstancehisragemarkstheboundaryofthatorder.EnroutefromChina,Crusoearrivesinthe«Muscovitesdominions»todiscov-er that, although the inhabitants are under Christian control, theywere «mere pagans, sacrificing to idols, and worshiping the sun,moon, and stars…»96.When he sees themworshipping an idol, he«wasmovedmore at their stupidity and brutishworship of a hob-

93OnDefoe’sfictionandthe«fortunatefall»,vd.G.STARR,DefoeandCasuistry,

Princeton,PrincetonUniv.Pr.,1973,p.93.94DEFOE,TheLifeandStrangeAdventuresofRobinsonCrusoe,cit.,p.320.95Ibidem.96Ivi,p.284.

David Alvarez Daniel Defoe’s Protestant Roman Catholics

23

goblin,thaneverIwasatanythinginmylife»97.Heisastonishedtosee the Tartars abandoning their «reasonable soul» to worship anidol98. In their ignorance, moreover, they have surrendered theiragencytowhat theythemselveshavemade.Crusoe findsthissight«impossible», and immediately acts tomake it so by attacking theidol:«Allmyadmirationturnedtorage;andIrodeuptotheimage[…] andwithmy sword cut thebonnet thatwason itshead»99.Byfirstdestroyingtheidol’s«GreatTartarbonnet»,Crusoeactstosep-aratetheTartarsfromtheiridentificationwithit100.Theresult,how-ever, is «amost hideous outcry and howling» from «two or threehundredpeople»,andsoCrusoeretreats101.Butheimmediatelybe-ginsplottingawaytodestroythe«monstrousidol»,andreturnswithtwoScotsafewnightslatertostuffits«eyes,ears,andmouthfullofgunpowder».Crusoethensetsfiretotheidolandblowsupitupinfrontofsomeofitsworshipers,«tillwesawitburnintoamereblockorlogofwood»102.

This episode suggests limits to Crusoe’s religious tolerance andcharity and seems to contradict his earlier practice. Scholars havefound it difficult to account for this abrupt change. ContextualizingCrusoeinrelationtoChina’seconomicdominanceduringthisperiod,Robert Markley argues that after leaving his island Crusoe is im-mersed in Asian «networks of communication and credit» thatthreatenhisnationalandreligiousidentity.Thedestructionoftheidolenables Defoe to double-down on this identity through the «Prot-estant revenge fantasy»ofdestroyinganAsian idol103. LeahOrrhasarguedsimilarlythatTheFartherAdventurestracksCrusoe’sdifficultywith «maintaining the position of absolute faith when confrontedwithreal-worldproblems»104.Crusoethusactsviolentlytowardspa-gansbecauseofhisgrowinguncertaintyabouthisChristianfaith.

97Ivi,p.285.98Ivi,p.286.99Ibidem.100Ivi,p.285.101Ivi,p.286.102Ivi,p.292.103R.MARKLEY,TheFarEastandtheEnglishImagination1600-1720,Cambridge,

CambridgeUniv.Pr.,2006,pp.179,204.104L.ORR,ProvidenceandReligion in theCrusoeTrilogy, «Eighteenth-Century

Life»,38,2014,2,pp.1-27:p.22.HansTurleyarguestheopposite:Crusoebecomesareligiousfanatictogain«asenseofidentity»becausehe«hasnoisland,nofami-

I castelli di Yale

24

ButCrusoe’srageseemslessinspiredbyanxietiesabouthisreli-gious identity thanby thedesire to emancipatepagans from theirradicalignoranceabouttruereligion.Moreover,thepaganritualistsdonot fitwithin thenovel’s Protestant backgroundunderstandingofreligionasdoctrineandopinion.Sincethisconceptionofreligionenablesthepracticeoftoleration,their idolatry isnotamenabletotolerance achieved through religion as belief. The pagan Tartars,therefore, cannot be tolerated105. In other words, unlike the “Pa-pist”priestandthecolonialSpaniards,theidol-worshippersaretooCatholictobeProtestant.TheCrusoewhoproclaimedonhisislandthat «I allow’d Liberty of Conscience throughout my Dominions»doesnotdiffer fromtheCrusoewhoviolentlyattacks the idol.Re-buking thepagan idolaters throughProtestant criticismsofRomanCatholicism,Crusoeviewsthemasimproperandanachronisticreli-gioussubjects106.

Crusoe iswillingtodieasamartyr toemancipatethesepagansfromtheir thrall to fetishismand tobring them intoamodernun-derstandingofreligion107.Hisabilitytoevangelize,however, is lim-ited.Significantly,if«truereligionisnaturallycommunicative»,Cru-soehasdifficultiesconversingwiththeTartarsabout itoranythingelse.Forexample,heproposestoleaveanoteexplainingthe«rea-sonsandcauses inwriting, intheirownlanguage»forthedestruc-tionoftheidol,buthelearnsthattheyareilliterate:«thereisnotamaninfivenationsofthemthatknowanythingofa letter,orhowtoreadawordinanylanguage,orintheirown».Thisaugurspoorlyfor theireventualProtestantism. In theend,Crusoehopes thathisviolence will reveal to them their inhuman brutishness: «Naturemaydrawinferencesfrom[theactofdestroyingtheidol]tothem,to let them see how brutish they are to worship such horrid

ly, no friends, no Friday».Vd.H. TURLEY,The SublimationofDesire toApocalypticPassioninDefoe’sCrusoeTrilogy,inImperialDesire:DissidentSexualitiesandColo-nialLiterature,ed.byP.HoldenandR.Ruppel,Minneapolis,Univ.ofMinnesotaPr.,pp.3-20:p.15.

105Cooney notes the «Protestant bias of [Crusoe’s] neutrality towards reli-gions»inthefirstvolumewhenCrusoedecidestokillthecannibals(RobinsonCru-soe’s“LibertyofConscience”,cit.,p.207.

106On theconnectionbetweenmodernityandProtestantcriticismsof fetish-ism,vd.J.W.KEANE,ChristianModerns:FreedomandFetish intheMissionEncoun-ter,Berkeley,Univ.ofCaliforniaPr.,2007:pp.6-7,37-51.

107DEFOE,TheLifeandStrangeAdventuresofRobinsonCrusoe,cit.,p.288.

David Alvarez Daniel Defoe’s Protestant Roman Catholics

25

things»108. Unlike Crusoe’s near preternatural language abilities inhis firstencounterwithFriday,hiscommunicationwiththepagansisrestrictedtotheirhowlsandhisviolence.Representedasunabletoconverseabouttheirreligionintermsofopinion,thepaganidola-ters are placed outside the bounds of tolerance and the universalreligionthatsupportscosmopolitanisminDefoe’stext.Nonetheless,although he cannot communicate with them through words, heseekstoconversethroughanexplosion.

Indeed,Crusoeseeshisviolenceasapromiseof their freedom.Since idolworship isdehumanizing,heunderstandshisdestructionofCham-Chi-Thaunguasanactofemancipation.Prostratingthem-selves to«amere imaginaryobjectdressedupby themselves,andmade terrible to themselvesby their own contrivance», theyhavedisplacedtheiragencytoa«frightfulnothing».Theidolisdescribedashaving

aheadcertainlynotsomuchresemblinganycreaturethattheworldever saw; ears as big as goat’s horns, and as high; eyes as big as acrown-piece;anoselikeacrookedram’shorn;andamouthextendedfour-cornered,likethatofalion,withhorribleteeth,hookedlikeapar-rotsunderbill... [I]t’suppergarmentwasof sheepskins,with thewooloutward; a great Tartar bonneton thehead,with twohorns growingthroughit;itwasabouteightfeethigh,yethadnotfeetorlegs,oranyotherproportionofparts109.

Thisdescriptionoftheidolasanincoherentimagemadeuppri-marilyofbeasts reflects thedehumanizationof itsworshippers. Inaddition, they becomewhat theyworship, appearing to Crusoe as«all logsofwood, like their idol,andat first [I] really thought theyhadbeenso»110.The idoland itsworship thussignifyandproducethepagans’ lossofagencyandhumanity.Crusoe’sragecanbeun-derstood as an urgent attempt to liberate them from their self-oppression,toemancipatethemthroughaviolencethatisjustifiedby theneed to jumpstart their religiousenlightenment:destroying«thatsenselesslogofanidol»isaneffortonCrusoe’sparttoawak-enthesepagans’totheirfreedomandhumanityasproperreligioussubjects111.Accordingly,hisviolenceisagifttothevillagers,sinceit

108Ivi,p.287.109Ivi,pp.284-285.110Ivi,p.285.111Ibidem.

I castelli di Yale

26

opensupthepossibilityoftheirtreatingreligioninProtestanttermsaspersonalbeliefandchoice.

IfCrusoeelsewhere in thisnovel isopposed to rageandstrongpassionsingeneral,herehegivesfullvoicetomurderousrage.Afterhearing that a «poor Russian»whohad similarly attacked the idolwasplacedontopofit,strippednaked,«shotwithasmanyarrows[…]aswouldstickoverhiswholebody»,andwasthenburnt«asasacrificetotheidol»,Crusoecitesanearlierepisodeofarage-drivenmassacre of natives in Madagascar in which «man, woman, andchild»werekilledfor«theirmurderingoneofourmen».Heurges,«we ought to do so to this village»112. Crusoe had earlier stronglydenounced this slaughter as madness, and after one of the Scotsexplains that the Tartarswho had killed the Russianwere not thesame as thosewhomhehad just encountered, Crusoedecides in-steadtopunishtheidolasthecauseoftheRussian’sdeath.Thejus-tification for incommensurablevengeanceupon theTartarsdue tothedeathofaChristianEuropean(compareCrusoe’sdecisiontokillthecannibalsinthefirstvolumewhen«anEuropeanisthreatened»)is redirected to the symbolic destructionof the religion thatmoti-vatedtheTartars’violence113.

Itisnotonlyviolence,however,thatlinksCrusoetothepagans–despite his more modern religiosity. In Defoe’s description of theidol,all thesimilescompare itsappearancetovariousanimals,butoneof thesesimiles isnot liketheother,oneof themjustdoesn’tbelong.Indescribingtheidol’seyesas«bigasacrown-piece»,Cru-soe linkspaganfetishismtomoderncommodityfetishism,tomon-ey. Intheeyesoftheidol,Crusoeseessomeoftheidol inhimself.ThenovelrecognizesCrusoe’sownfetishism,hisownimpulsiveanduncontrollablepursuitoftradeandcrown-pieces.Thesharedfetish-ismandpropensitytoviolencethatCrusoeshareswiththeTartarsundercutsthenovel’seffortstoconstructaprogressivenarrativeofmodernityinwhichaglobalProtestantformofreligionenablesreli-gious toleration, self-control, and a beneficent global order; it un-dercutsDefoe’sparticularpolitical configurationof secularity.Ana-lyzingDefoe’s text throughthe formationof secularityandthede-velopmentofamodern,globaldefinitionofreligionhighlightshowreligionisnotmodernity’s“other”butaconstitutiveelementofit.

112Ivi,pp.288-289.113DEFOE,RobinsonCrusoe.AnAuthoritativeText,Contexts,Criticism,cit.,p.168.

David Alvarez Daniel Defoe’s Protestant Roman Catholics

27

V.GlobalEnlightenmentReligion:ModernityandViolence.

InsteadofconsideringCrusoe’sviolentdestructionofthepaganidolasreligiouslymotivatedby«residualnotionsofholywarandtheex-terminationofIslamandtheheathen»,itisbetterunderstoodasanexampleof amoderneffort topromoteauniversal understandingofreligionthatvalorizesautonomyandaprovidentialorderofglob-alization114.Defoeisnot lookingbackbut lookingforward.Thevio-lence against the pagan Tartars that Defoe imagines as justifiedshould not be seen as the result of a vestigial religion that an en-lightened,tolerantmodernityhasmovedpast.Rather,suchviolenceshouldbeanalyzedaspartofthedevelopmentofanormativesecu-larreligiosity,aparticularpoliticalpermutationoftheformationofEnlightenment secularity. Defoe’s Farther Adventures thus antici-patesMahmood’ssuggestionthat

onemightgoasfarastosaythatthepoliticalsolutionsecularismof-fers consists not somuch in “avoiding religious strife” but inmakingsure those religious life-forms that are deemed incompatible with asecular-politicalethosaremadeprovisional,ifnotextinct.Suchastrat-egymaywellleadtomore,ratherthanless,religiousstrife115.

In foregrounding the interconnectedness between the secularandthereligious,thisessayfollowsJürgenHabermas’«problematiz-ing intention of enlightening secular thought concerning the En-lightenment’sblinkeredsecularisticself-understanding»116.Thisgoalofamoreself-reflexiveawarenessofthehistoricalcontributionsof“religion” to the formation of the secular, moreover, should alsoheighten our awareness of the dangers of globalizing a normativesecular religiosity117. Defoe’s effort to imagine Lockean tolerationglobally,forexample,revealsitslimitsbecauseitspracticedependsonunderstandingreligionintermsofbeliefandautonomy.SinceitreliesonaProtestantbackgroundunderstandingofreligiontowork,Lockeantolerationnecessarilydrawsalinebetweenproperreligioussubjects that canbe toleratedand those that cannotbe.Onemay

114ARAVAMUDAN,Defoe,Commerce,andEmpire,cit.,p.62.115MAHMOOD,Secularism,Hermeneutics,andEmpire,cit.,p.328.116J.HABERMAS,ReplytomyCritics,inHabermasandReligion,ed.byC.Calhoun,E.

Mendieta,J.VanAntwerpen,Cambridge,PolityPr.,2013,pp.347-390:p.363.117Itisworthrememberingthatrevisionistscholarshiponsecularismbeganin

India as a postcolonial pushback against its assumed universality. Vd. SecularismandItsCritics,ed.byR.Bhargava,NewDelhi,OxfordUniv.Pr.,1998.

I castelli di Yale

28

wonderwhetherthe limitsoftolerationtodaycanbeexplainedonthe same basis. In our contemporary secular age, is Islam today’sRoman Catholicism?What is the difference between Defoe’s ani-mositytotheidolandcontemporarycallsforMuslimsnottovener-atedepictionsofMohammed?SuchquestionssuggestthattheEn-lightenmentmaynothavesolvedtheproblemofreligiousviolenceforeveryoneforever.Theyalsosuggestthatinsofarasitisjustifiedbyperennial calls for theMuslimworld tohave itsownEnlighten-ment, thewaronterrorshouldbeunderstoodasaneffort topro-ducemodernreligioussubjects118.InTheFartherAdventures,Defoehasalreadyimaginedthepossibleviolenceofsuchaneffort.

© 2018 The Author. Open Access published under the terms of the CC-BY-4.0.

118MahmoodmakesthisargumentinSecularism,Hermeneutics,andEmpire.