History of the Plague in England | Page 4

Mr.
Saintsbury, had but small sense of humor, even he must have felt
tickled in his grave at this ponderous scientific tribute to his skill in the
art of realistic description.
If we inquire further into the secret of Defoe's success in the "History
of the Plague," we shall find that it consists largely in his vision, or
power of seeing clearly and accurately what he describes, before he
attempts to put this description on paper. As Defoe was but four years
old at the time of the Great Plague, his personal recollection of its
effects must have been of the dimmest; but during the years of
childhood (the most imaginative of life) he must often have conversed
with persons who had been through the plague, possibly with those
who had recovered from it themselves. He must often have visited
localities ravaged by the plague, and spared by the Great Fire of 1666;
he must often have gazed in childish horror at those awful mounds
beneath which hundreds of human bodies lay huddled together,--rich
and poor, high and low, scoundrel and saint,--sharing one common bed
at last. His retentive memory must have stored away at least the outline
of those hideous images, so effectively recombined many years later by
means of his powerful though limited imagination.
* * * * *
Defoe had the ability to become a good scholar, and to acquire the
elements of a good English style; but it is certain he never did. He

never had time, or rather he never took time, preferring invariably
quantity to quality. What work of his has survived till to-day is read,
not for its style, but in spite of its style. His syntax is loose and
unscholarly; his vocabulary is copious, but often inaccurate; many of
his sentences ramble on interminably, lacking unity, precision, and
balance. Figures of speech he seldom abuses because he seldom uses;
his imagination, as noticed before, being extremely limited in range.
That Defoe, in spite of these defects, should succeed in interesting us in
his "Plague," is a remarkable tribute to his peculiar ability as described
in the preceding paragraph.
In the course of the Notes, the editor has indicated such corrections as
are necessary to prevent the student from thinking that in reading Defoe
he is drinking from a "well of English undefiled." The art of writing an
English prose at once scholarly, clear-cut, and vigorous, was well
understood by Defoe's great contemporaries, Dryden, Swift, and
Congreve; it does not seem to have occurred to Defoe that he could
learn anything from their practice. He has his reward. "Robinson
Crusoe" may continue to hold the child and the kitchen wench; but the
"Essay on Dramatic Poesy," "The Battle of the Books," and "Love for
Love," are for the men and women of culture.
* * * * *
The standard Life of Defoe is by William Lee (London, J.C. Hotten,
1869). William Minto, in the "English Men of Letters Series," has an
excellent short biography of Defoe. For criticism, the only good
estimate I am acquainted with is by Leslie Stephen, in "Hours in a
Library, First Series." The nature of the article on Defoe in the
"Britannica" may be indicated by noticing that the writer (Saintsbury)
seriously compares Defoe with Carlyle as a descriptive writer. It would
be consoling to think that this is intended as a joke.
Those who wish to know more about the plague than Defoe tells them
should consult Besant's "London," pp. 376-394 (New York, Harpers).
Besant refers to two pamphlets, "The Wonderful Year" and "Vox
Civitatis," which he thinks Defoe must have used in writing his book.

FOOTNOTES:
[1] At first, a weekly; with the fifth number, a bi-weekly; after the first
year, a tri-weekly.
[2] Preface to his pamphlet entitled Street Robberies.
[3] For a very different estimate, see Saintsbury's Selections from
Defoe's Minor Novels.

HISTORY OF THE PLAGUE IN LONDON.
It was about the beginning of September, 1664, that I, among the rest of
my neighbors, heard in ordinary discourse that the plague was returned
again in Holland; for it had been very violent there, and particularly at
Amsterdam and Rotterdam, in the year 1663, whither, they say, it was
brought (some said from Italy, others from the Levant) among some
goods which were brought home by their Turkey fleet; others said it
was brought from Candia; others, from Cyprus. It mattered not from
whence it came; but all agreed it was come into Holland again.[4]
We had no such thing as printed newspapers in those days, to spread
rumors and reports of things, and to improve them by the invention of
men, as I have lived to see practiced since. But such things as those
were gathered from the letters of merchants and others who