Daniel Defoe
The Fortunate Mistress
UUID: fab48004-00ac-11e6-b4d4-0f7870795abd
This ebook was created with StreetLib Write (http://write.streetlib.com)by Simplicissimus Book Farm
Table of contents
INTRODUCTION
FOOTNOTES
AUTHOR'S PREFACE
A HISTORY OF THE LIFE OF ROXANA
INTRODUCTION
In
March, 1724, was published the narrative in which Defoe came, perhaps
even nearer than in
Moll Flanders, to
writing what we today call a novel, namely:
The Fortunate Mistress; or, a History of the Life and Vast Variety of
Fortunes of Mademoiselle de' Belau; afterwards called the Countess of
Wintelsheim, in Germany. Being the Person known by the name of the
Lady Roxana, in the Time of King Charles II.
No second edition appeared till after Defoe's death, which occurred
in 1731. Then for some years, various editions of
The Fortunate Mistress
came out. Because Defoe had not indicated the end of his chief
characters so clearly as he usually did in his stories, several of
these later editions carried on the history of the heroine. Probably
none of the continuations was by Defoe himself, though the one in the
edition of 1745 has been attributed to him. For this reason, and
because it has some literary merit, it is included in the present
edition.That
this continuation was not by Defoe is attested in various ways. In
the first place, it tells the history of Roxana down to her death in
July, 1742, a date which Defoe would not have been likely to fix, for
he died himself in April, 1731. Moreover, the statement that she was
sixty-four when she died, does not agree with the statement at the
beginning of Defoe's narrative that she was ten years old in 1683.
She must have been born in 1673, and consequently would have been
sixty-nine in 1742. This discrepancy, however, ceases to be important
when we consider the general confusion of dates in the part of the
book certainly by Defoe. The title-page announces that his heroine
was "known by the name of the Lady Roxana, in the Time of King
Charles II." She must have been known by this name when she was
a child of eleven or twelve, then, for she was ten when her parents
fled to England "about 1683," and Charles II. died in
February, 1685. Moreover, she was not married till she was fifteen;
she lived eight years with her husband; and then she was mistress
successively to the friendly jeweller, the Prince, and the Dutch
merchant. Yet after this career, she returned to London in time to
become a noted toast among Charles II.'s courtiers and to entertain
at her house that monarch and the Duke of Monmouth.A
stronger argument for different authorship is the difference in style
between the continuation of
Roxana and the
earlier narrative. In the continuation Defoe's best-known mannerisms
are lacking, as two instances will show. Critics have often called
attention to the fact that
fright, instead of
frighten, was a
favourite word of Defoe. Now
frighten, and not
fright, is the verb
used in the continuation. Furthermore, I have pointed out in a
previous introduction[1]
that Defoe was fond of making his characters
smile, to show
either kindliness or shrewd penetration. They do not
smile in the
continuation.There
are other differences between the original story of
The Fortunate Mistress
and the continuation of 1745. The former is better narrative than the
latter; it moves quicker; it is more real. And yet there is a
manifest attempt in the continuation to imitate the manner and the
substance of the story proper. There is a dialogue, for example,
between Roxana and the Quakeress, modelled on the dialogues which
Defoe was so fond of. Again, there is a fairly successful attempt to
copy Defoe's circumstantiality; there is an amount of detail in the
continuation which makes it more graphic than much of the fiction
which has been given to the world. And finally, in understanding and
reproducing the characters of Roxana and Amy, the anonymous author
has done remarkably well. The character of Roxana's daughter is less
true to Defoe's conception; the girl, as he drew her, was actuated
more by natural affection in seeking her mother, and less by
interest. The character of the Dutch merchant, likewise, has not
changed for the better in the continuation. He has developed a
vindictiveness which, in our former meetings with him, seemed foreign
to his nature.I
have said that in
The Fortunate Mistress
Defoe has come nearer than usual to writing what we to-day call a
novel; the reason is that he has had more success than usual in
making his characters real. Though many of them are still
wooden—lifeless types, rather than individuals—yet the Prince,
the Quakeress, and the Dutch merchant occasionally wake to life; so
rather more does the unfortunate daughter; and more yet, Amy and
Roxana. With the exception of Moll Flanders, these last two are more
vitalised than any personages Defoe invented. In this pair,
furthermore, Defoe seems to have been interested in bringing out the
contrast between characters. The servant, Amy, thrown with another
mistress, might have been a totally different woman. The vulgarity of
a servant she would have retained under any circumstances, as she did
even when promoted from being the maid to being the companion of
Roxana; but it was unreasoning devotion to her mistress, combined
with weakness of character, which led Amy to be vicious.Roxana,
for her part, had to the full the independence, the initiative, which
her woman was without,—or rather was without when acting for
herself; for when acting in the interests of her mistress, Amy was a
different creature. Like all of Defoe's principal characters, Roxana
is eminently practical, cold-blooded and selfish. After the first
pang at parting with her five children, she seldom thinks of them
except as encumbrances; she will provide for them as decently as she
can without personal inconvenience, but even a slight sacrifice for
the sake of one of them is too much for her. Towards all the men with
whom she has dealings, and towards the friendly Quakeress of the
Minories, too, she shows a calculating reticence which is most
unfeminine. The continuator of our story endowed the heroine with
wholly characteristic selfishness when he made her, on hearing of
Amy's death, feel less sorrow for the miserable fate of her friend,
than for her own loss of an adviser.And
yet Roxana is capable of fine feeling, as is proved by those tears of
joy for the happy change in her fortunes, which bring about that
realistic love scene between her and the Prince in regard to the
supposed paint on her cheeks. Again, when shipwreck threatens her and
Amy, her emotion and repentance are due as much to the thought that
she has degraded Amy to her own level as to thoughts of her more
flagrant sins. That she is capable of feeling gratitude, she shows in
her generosity to the Quakeress. And in her rage and remorse, on
suspecting that her daughter has been murdered, and in her emotion
several times on seeing her children, Roxana shows herself a true
woman. In short, though for the most part monumentally selfish, she
is yet saved from being impossible by several displays of noble
emotion. One of the surprises, to a student of Defoe, is that this
thick-skinned, mercantile writer, the vulgarest of all our great men
of letters in the early eighteenth century, seems to have known a
woman's heart better than a man's. At least he has succeeded in
making two or three of his women characters more alive than any of
his men. It is another surprise that in writing of women, Defoe often
seems ahead of his age. In the argument between Roxana and her Dutch
merchant about a woman's independence, Roxana talks like a character
in a "problem" play or novel of our own day. This, perhaps,
is not to Defoe's credit, but it is to his credit that he has said
elsewhere:[2]
"A woman well-bred and well-taught, furnished with the ...
accomplishments of knowledge and behaviour, is a creature without
comparison; her society is the emblem of sublime enjoyments; ... and
the man that has such a one to his portion, has nothing to do but to
rejoice in her, and be thankful." After reading these words, one
cannot but regret that Defoe did not try to create heroines more
virtuous than Moll Flanders and Roxana.It
is not only in drawing his characters that Defoe, in
The Fortunate Mistress,
comes nearer than usual to producing a novel. This narrative of his
is less loosely constructed than any others except
Robinson Crusoe and
the Journal of the
Plague Year, which
it was easier to give structure to. In both of them—the story of a
solitary on a desert island and the story of the visitation of a
pestilence—the nature of the subject made the author's course
tolerably plain; in
The Fortunate Mistress,
the proper course was by no means so well marked. The more credit is
due Defoe, therefore, that the book is so far from being entirely
inorganised that, had he taken sufficient pains with the ending, it
would have had as much structure as many good novels. There is no
strongly defined plot, it is true; but in general, if a character is
introduced, he is heard from again; a scene that impresses itself on
the mind of the heroine is likely to be important in the sequel. The
story seems to be working itself out to a logical conclusion, when
unexpectedly it comes to an end. Defoe apparently grew tired of it
for some reason, and wound it up abruptly, with only the meagre
information as to the fate of Roxana and Amy that they "fell
into a dreadful course of calamities."
FOOTNOTES
[1]
See Memoirs of a Cavalier[2]
An Essay upon Projects, An Academy for Women.
AUTHOR'S PREFACE
The
history of this beautiful lady is to speak for itself; if it is not
as beautiful as the lady herself is reported to be; if it is not as
diverting as the reader can desire, and much more than he can
reasonably expect; and if all the most diverting parts of it are not
adapted to the instruction and improvement of the reader, the relator
says it must be from the defect of his performance; dressing up the
story in worse clothes than the lady whose words he speaks, prepared
for the world.He
takes the liberty to say that this story differs from most of the
modern performances of this kind, though some of them have met with a
very good reception in the world. I say, it differs from them in this
great and essential article, namely, that the foundation of this is
laid in truth of fact; and so the work is not a story, but a history.The
scene is laid so near the place where the main part of it was
transacted that it was necessary to conceal names and persons, lest
what cannot be yet entirely forgot in that part of the town should be
remembered, and the facts traced back too plainly by the many people
yet living, who would know the persons by the particulars.It
is not always necessary that the names of persons should be
discovered, though the history may be many ways useful; and if we
should be always obliged to name the persons, or not to relate the
story, the consequence might be only this—that many a pleasant and
delightful history would be buried in the dark, and the world
deprived both of the pleasure and the profit of it.The
writer says he was particularly acquainted with this lady's first
husband, the brewer, and with his father, and also with his bad
circumstances, and knows that first part of the story to be truth.This
may, he hopes, be a pledge for the credit of the rest, though the
latter part of her history lay abroad, and could not be so well
vouched as the first; yet, as she has told it herself, we have the
less reason to question the truth of that part also.In
the manner she has told the story, it is evident she does not insist
upon her justification in any one part of it; much less does she
recommend her conduct, or, indeed, any part of it, except her
repentance, to our imitation. On the contrary, she makes frequent
excursions, in a just censuring and condemning her own practice. How
often does she reproach herself in the most passionate manner, and
guide us to just reflections in the like cases!It
is true she met with unexpected success in all her wicked courses;
but even in the highest elevations of her prosperity she makes
frequent acknowledgments that the pleasure of her wickedness was not
worth the repentance; and that all the satisfaction she had, all the
joy in the view of her prosperity—no, nor all the wealth she rolled
in, the gaiety of her appearance, the equipages and the honours she
was attended with, could quiet her mind, abate the reproaches of her
conscience, or procure her an hour's sleep when just reflection kept
her waking.The
noble inferences that are drawn from this one part are worth all the
rest of the story, and abundantly justify, as they are the professed
design of, the publication.If
there are any parts in her story which, being obliged to relate a
wicked action, seem to describe it too plainly, the writer says all
imaginable care has been taken to keep clear of indecencies and
immodest expressions; and it is hoped you will find nothing to prompt
a vicious mind, but everywhere much to discourage and expose it.Scenes
of crime can scarce be represented in such a manner but some may make
a criminal use of them; but when vice is painted in its low-prized
colours, it is not to make people in love with it, but to expose it;
and if the reader makes a wrong use of the figures, the wickedness is
his own.In
the meantime, the advantages of the present work are so great, and
the virtuous reader has room for so much improvement, that we make no
question the story, however meanly told, will find a passage to his
best hours, and be read both with profit and delight.
A HISTORY OF THE LIFE OF ROXANA
I
was born, as my friends told me, at the city of Poitiers, in the
province or county of Poitou, in France, from whence I was brought to
England by my parents, who fled for their religion about the year
1683, when the Protestants were banished from France by the cruelty
of their persecutors.I,
who knew little or nothing of what I was brought over hither for, was
well enough pleased with being here. London, a large and gay city,
took with me mighty well, who, from my being a child, loved a crowd,
and to see a great many fine folks.I
retained nothing of France but the language, my father and mother
being people of better fashion than ordinarily the people called
refugees at that time were; and having fled early, while it was easy
to secure their effects, had, before their coming over, remitted
considerable sums of money, or, as I remember, a considerable value
in French brandy, paper, and other goods; and these selling very much
to advantage here, my father was in very good circumstances at his
coming over, so that he was far from applying to the rest of our
nation that were here for countenance and relief. On the contrary, he
had his door continually thronged with miserable objects of the poor
starving creatures who at that time fled hither for shelter on
account of conscience, or something else.I
have indeed heard my father say that he was pestered with a great
many of those who, for any religion they had, might e'en have stayed
where they were, but who flocked over hither in droves, for what they
call in English a livelihood; hearing with what open arms the
refugees were received in England, and how they fell readily into
business, being, by the charitable assistance of the people in
London, encouraged to work in their manufactories in Spitalfields,
Canterbury, and other places, and that they had a much better price
for their work than in France, and the like.My
father, I say, told me that he was more pestered with the clamours of
these people than of those who were truly refugees, and fled in
distress merely for conscience.I
was about ten years old when I was brought over hither, where, as I
have said, my father lived in very good circumstances, and died in
about eleven years more; in which time, as I had accomplished myself
for the sociable part of the world, so I had acquainted myself with
some of our English neighbours, as is the custom in London; and as,
while I was young, I had picked up three or four playfellows and
companions suitable to my years, so, as we grew bigger, we learned to
call one another intimates and friends; and this forwarded very much
the finishing me for conversation and the world.I
went to English schools, and being young, I learned the English
tongue perfectly well, with all the customs of the English young
women; so that I retained nothing of the French but the speech; nor
did I so much as keep any remains of the French language tagged to my
way of speaking, as most foreigners do, but spoke what we call
natural English, as if I had been born here.Being
to give my own character, I must be excused to give it as impartially
as possible, and as if I was speaking of another body; and the sequel
will lead you to judge whether I flatter myself or no.I
was (speaking of myself at about fourteen years of age) tall, and
very well made; sharp as a hawk in matters of common knowledge; quick
and smart in discourse; apt to be satirical; full of repartee; and a
little too forward in conversation, or, as we call it in English,
bold, though perfectly modest in my behaviour. Being French born, I
danced, as some say, naturally, loved it extremely, and sang well
also, and so well that, as you will hear, it was afterwards some
advantage to me. With all these things, I wanted neither wit, beauty,
or money. In this manner I set out into the world, having all the
advantages that any young woman could desire, to recommend me to
others, and form a prospect of happy living to myself.
Lesen Sie weiter in der vollständigen Ausgabe!