Is Defoe’s Journal better regarded as a primary source or as a historical account of the plague to be judged the same as any other secondary source?

Daniel Defoe is known by modern standards as one of the fathers of British novel writing, however in his time, his contemporaries knew him as a journalist (in the profession’s earliest iteration) and historical writer. Looking at what kind of source Defoe’s Journal can be adjudged to be, there are arguments for all three possibilities, a primary source for 1665 and/or 1722, or a secondary source for the plague of 1665. While it was believed for much of the 18th century that the work was a primary source of the plague, this has since been deposed as the lead proposition of its classification. In all when determining its status, it is important to specify what it’s being used for in every instance, as it could be, for one person used as a primary source for 1722, but then as a secondary source for 1665 by another. Therefore overall, it can be seen that in reality, this text skirts the borders of all three possibilities, with there being importance laying in what it is being used for and by whom it is being used.

Being published in 1722, it can be hard for some to see how it could be a primary source for the ‘great visitation’ of 1665 as Defoe put it in his original copy’s cover. However, the idea has been put forward that Defoe’s text is somewhat a reconciliation of the memoirs of his Uncle, Henry Foe. Evidence for this is the fact that the original was published under the name ‘H. F.’. The fact that Defoe was only a young child of 5 years old at the time of the plague does show that the stories and views he expresses cannot possibly be of his own experience, but if he is conveying the genuine experiences of an eyewitness, it can definitely be fair to see the source as primary for 1665. This is apparent when Defoe weighs up the conundrum of whether to leave the city during the plague when he says, ‘how I should dispose of myself; that is to say, whether I should resolve to stay in London, or shut up my House and flee, as many of my neighbours did.’[1]. This shows how it could be seen as primary to the 1665 plague, as a way of recalling the memories of Defoe’s Uncle. It is of course not possible without new evidence as to how Defoe could’ve got this information from Henry Foe, with it likely being either from direct discussion or adaption of diaries that may have been kept by his uncle. Diary keeping was emerging in popularity in the 1660s and diarists in the middle sort like Pepys and Evelyn show that Henry Foe may have kept a diary. Foe’s job as a saddler meant he wasn’t one of the higher middling sort of London, but he would have had a stable, respectable income. This financial middle ground could be seen to be evident in the stories told in Defoe’s Journal as Foe would’ve come into a lot of contact daily with the poor, people who for example would’ve resorted to ‘inward medicine’ as the Order of Physicians put it. These points show clearly why Defoe’s work can be seen as a primary source for the 1665 plague.

Similarly, when looking from another perspective, there are pointers in Defoe’s Journal that give the impression that it could be a primary source for 1722. The outbreak of plague in France that occurred in 1722 had led to both panic and debate in Britain, with people petrified of a plague reminiscent to 1665, the most recent plague year to them. Defoe’s profession as a journalist at the time as well as the other academic works he produced show him to be a man of the world, unafraid of debate and learned conjecture. Many see this in Defoe’s Journal, with the narrative text being woven with accounts from the time and Bills of Mortality used both to show the statistics for the plague dead and those who died from illnesses other than the plague[2]) in perhaps a social commentary, made to induce thought of the last time there was a visitation, and that the problem of the plague should not be taken lightly. This perhaps shows that Defoe was trying to provoke thought to enter into debate on what precautions should be taken, with the Government wanting to impose a national quarantine from affected nations as well as shutting up similar to how plague sufferers were treated in 1665. The dislike of this treatment of the common people unlucky enough to be infected was lamented by Defoe who advocates pesthouses to isolate the infected together with other sufferers rather than condemning the whole family to death as was the case with locking people up in their own homes. The cordon sanitaire techniques used in France were also rejected by the English people and parliament with the only measure the government being able to pass being the national quarantine from infected nations. While this worked to an extent in controlling the spread of the disease, people fell into famine. This was vividly described by Defoe in his Journalism for Applebee’s Original Weekly Journal which he describes the scenes of rampaging inhabitants of Marseille and Thoulon, driven by the madness of hunger to find bread[3]. The fact that he also included the ‘Orders conceived and published of the Lord Mayor’[4] shows his negative focus on the role of the government, he detailed that shutting up was ‘very cruel and unchristian’[5]. These points show that although he was supposedly projecting the memoirs of someone who was fully grown (Defoe was present but too young to be able to remember substantial, clear memories like those in the Journal), he quite obviously puts forward the tales and accounts with the intention of implanting his own ideas into the readers thought, in such a contentious time as 1722, with London supposedly on the brink of another ‘great visitation’.

Of course, contrary to the two previous points, the Journal, could be seen to be purely secondary source material. This is quite clearly argued when using the source in certain circumstances. For example, the fact that Defoe critiques the ‘Orders of the Mayor’ could be seen, as previously argued, to show the ideas of the orders were not of his taste and that he believed they should not be repeated, but he may also have been critical of them simply as he, and maybe his uncle, didn’t like them, similarly to many contemporaries. Being that Defoe cannot be writing directly from his own experience, some say this has to make it a secondary source, either being the recalling of Henry Foe’s memories or simply it being a work of fiction. No doubt the amount of research and attention to detail that went into the work was massive, as previously mentioned, Defoe consulted all kinds of materials including Bills of Mortality and the ‘Orders of the Mayor’. Some could even liken the Journal to Defoe’s other works of literature like Robinson Crusoe, which may be fiction, but draws the story an inspiration heavily from an eyewitness tale heard by Defoe, which he researched and used as the template for his most famous work. Defoe was also known in his day as a journalist and historian, this could support the idea of the Journal being a secondary work as he may have been trying to immerse himself or the readers in the times to better understand or make sense of them. This shows that actually there is a stern argument in favour of the work being a secondary source.

This essay has looked at the reasons why many could see Defoe’s Journal as either a primary source for 1665 and/or 1722 or as a secondary source on the plague of 1665. It is clear that the truth of whether this text was a direct account taken from Defoe’s uncle or another eyewitness or if it was purely fiction can never be known without new evidence. Therefore, this conjecture allows the source to be different due to people’s different views and needs. It can be insightful to someone looking at the views held in 1722 on what they should do at the time and it gives ideas of Defoe at that time on what was done in 1665. While it was clearly not Defoe writing from experience, the source can give insight into what someone living through the plague could have experienced, with it being wholly realistic that at least a proportion of the text was taken from real life accounts. Thirdly again to another person looking at a more academically accurate history of the plague, this could be used as an immersive secondary source of the plague and its effects on the poor and richer sort of London. Therefore, it can be seen that while historians can quarrel as to the classification of this text being either primary or secondary, what is clear is that it is wholly functional as any of the three ideas presented. Being long and convoluted, at least parts of it can fulfil criteria making it useful in any and all of the three stated in question.

(Word count: 1570)

Bibliography

Paper Copy

Defoe, Daniel, Journal of the Plague Year, ed. by Paula R. Backscheider ([n.p.], Norton, 1992).

Digital

Slack, Paul, ‘Responses to Plague in Early Modern Europe: The Implications of Public Health’, in Social Research, Vol. 55 (1998).

[1] Daniel Defoe, Journal of the Plague Year, ed. by Paula R. Backscheider ([New York(?)] Norton, 1992), p. 11.

[2] Ibid. p. 161.

[3] Ibid, pp. 218-220.

[4] Ibid, pp. 46-43.

[5] Ibid, p. 44.