New Historicism and Crusoe’s Faith

In class, upon discussing whether or not Crusoe’s faith was genuine, some classmates pointed to Crusoe’s treatment of Xury and Friday as evidence of the protagonist’s arrogance and slothfulness. While it may be true that Crusoe often treated Xury as one would a slave, and Friday as one would a savage, it is unfair to allow these incidences to define Crusoe’s personal faith. Personally, I feel these insensitivities are more reflective of the 18^th Century English society from which Crusoe was spawned rather than any personal convictions, and to hold Crusoe’s responsible for the sins of the many is an unfair distraction and teaches us very little about the character of Crusoe.

In the 1980’s literary critic Stephen Greenblatt came up with New Historicism, a new way of examining literature which aims to contextualize all works as well as delving into them analytically. The aim of this movement was to counter the tendency, jumpstarted by the New Critics, to examine literature solely at face-value without any outside sources (i.e. social contextualization, author’s biography, inspirations of the work, ect…). You can read all about the New Historicism movement here:

http://www-english.tamu.edu/pers/fac/myers/historicism.html

My point is that certain aspects of Crusoe’s character can be explained through examination of the society which created him. Certainly, as Hayley explained with her presentation on Tuesday, Crusoe’s work ethic is certainly coincides with what the Protestant movement of the era, and I would suggest that this work ethic is deep seeded in Crusoe’s personality. And certainly it’s difficult to blame Crusoe for finding God in times of hardship, as the testing of one’s faith in difficult is a well-known aspect of Christianity.

Advertisement