Richard Kerschagl, Daniel Defoe – ein vergessener Reformer (1965)

Richard Kerschagl’s German-language article rehabilitates Daniel Defoe as an economic, social, and political reformer whose significance extends beyond his fiction. Its three sections move from a defence of Defoe’s character through his institutional projects to his political ideas. Kerschagl argues that apparent political inconsistency concealed enduring commitments and that seemingly utopian proposals anticipated practical reforms.

The opening section treats Defoe’s contested reputation as a problem of both interpretation and evidence. Service under successive rulers and unsuccessful commercial ventures encouraged charges of opportunism, while anonymous publication, uncertain attribution, and inaccessible pamphlets complicated assessment. The dominance of the novels further obscured the range of his intellectual activity.

Es gibt überhaupt kaum ein Problem, das Daniel Defoe nicht behandelt hat².

English translation: There is scarcely any problem at all which Daniel Defoe did not treat².

This breadth underwrites Kerschagl’s effort to recover the pamphleteer behind the novelist. He distinguishes commercial failure from economic insight and changes of political allegiance from abandonment of principle. Religious toleration supplies a particularly important test: Defoe defended it even against fellow Dissenters and at considerable personal risk.

Wie viele hätten Gefängnis und Pranger erduldet mit der einzigen „Gnade“, daß man, wie es in seinem Strafdekret so schön heißt, aus Entgegenkommen bei ihm vom Ohrenabschneiden und Auspeitschen absah?

English translation: How many would have endured prison and the pillory with the sole "mercy" that, as his sentence of punishment so nicely puts it, out of accommodation the cutting off of his ears and the flogging were dispensed with in his case?

The rhetorical question makes suffering evidence of conviction. Loyalty to Robert Harley and John Law, support for persecuted Protestant immigrants, and advocacy of racial equality similarly contribute to Kerschagl’s sympathetic portrait. His argument asks readers to judge Defoe by sustained commitments rather than by a sequence of employers or financial reversals.

The second section places Defoe alongside later social reformers. Comparisons with Owen, Saint-Simon, and Fourier highlight social sympathy, religious orientation, and institutional inventiveness. For Kerschagl, the utopian character of a proposal often reflects the interval between its conception and implementation, rather than an intrinsic impossibility.

The Essay on Projects, dated 1698 in the article, anchors this account. Bankruptcy reform would preserve debtors’ capacity to repay instead of destroying it through imprisonment; juvenile correction would displace brutal punishment. Poorhouses, institutional care for the mentally ill, and foundling homes would organise assistance where neglect prevailed. Lotteries, income-related taxation, and contributory public pensions link social purposes to financial mechanisms. Kerschagl distinguishes proportional taxation from progressive taxation rather than treating every proposal as equivalent to a later institution.

Education forms another branch of this programme. English-language instruction would widen access, military academies would promote qualification over the purchase of commissions, and women would gain admission throughout the educational system. Later pamphlets renewed or modified earlier projects, sometimes noting partial implementation. War expenditure, however, could delay reform or undo progress; provision for disabled servicemen benefited from its connection to military necessity. Institutional change thus depended on fiscal and political circumstances as well as intellectual innovation.

The final section recovers political argument within Robinson Crusoe and Moll Flanders, especially social criticism obscured by abridged adventure editions. Kerschagl connects Defoe with questions later associated with Rousseau and Montesquieu: social organisation, judicial independence, and natural rights. Religious liberty remains central. Civilian control over decisions of war and peace, together with opposition to naval impressment, limits military authority. Chambers of commerce exemplify the allocation of specialised tasks to organisations capable of acting more effectively and independently than central government.

Defoe’s continuing engagement with John Law also helps Kerschagl establish the extent and persistence of his economic interests.

Gegen 50 davon sind erst nach der Flucht von John Law aus Paris in seinen letzten Lebensjahren geschrieben.

English translation: Nearly 50 of them were written only after John Law's flight from Paris, in his last years of life.

The closing discussion considers Anglo-Scottish union, colonial participation as an incentive to agreement, and Defoe’s anti-Ottoman and pro-Habsburg positions. Kerschagl nevertheless notes a limitation in his treatment of Islam: it overlooks comparatively greater toleration in Turkish territories than in much of North Africa. The article’s contribution lies in redirecting attention toward Defoe’s pamphlets as evidence of institutional imagination. Its sympathetic, anticipatory interpretation measures that imagination repeatedly against reforms achieved only later.