Contextual Commentary

Contextual Commentary 

Hyperlinks back to the Online Edition will be shown in brackets after certain sentences. i.e. (see Preface-line starting ‘quote from Online Edition‘)

Introduction
The aim of this contextual commentary is to bring together a corpus of research, commentary and related texts to The True-Born Englishman. In doing this, I am hopefully creating a useful reference tool. One of the main aims of my digital edition is to provide a cost-free version of the text with a network of related material all in one place. As detailed in my rationale, the contextual commentary is important when showing how digital publishing can improve the representation of old texts; going above and changing the limitations of using printed works as reference tools; and in aiming to improve the reading and studying of The True-Born Englishman. My work here is not an exhaustive list of sources or an exhaustive reference guide, for this reason the commentary will reflect upon some of the main works (print and digital) that have sought to contextualise and understand The True-Born Englishman.

The Contextual Commentary will focus on a selection of key themes in relation to The True-Born Englishman. The focus therefore will be on John Tutchin’s The Foreigners, King William III and the Glorious revolution: with an exploration of Defoe’s political theory and Defoe in relation to the Monmouth Rebellion. There will also be a section devoted to the standing army debate, European war and the balance of power. The commentary will, using hyperlinks, link to and from the online edition.

(The related texts (inter-texts) will be listed along with links to subscription digital facsimiles and cost free versions, at the bottom of each section. There will also be a link for each text to the ESTC’s full bibliographical record)

The Foreigners, William III, The Glorious Revolution, Defoe’s Political Theory and The Monmouth Rebellion.

The Foreigners
The True-Born Englishman. A Satyr was initially written as a response to John Tutchin’s The Foreigners. There is supporting evidence for this in a 1715 publication by Defoe, called An Appeal to Honour and Justice, where Defoe states:

there came out a vile abhor’d Pamphlet, in very ill verse, written by one Mr. Tutchin, and call’d, THE FOREIGNERS: In which the author, who he was I then knew not, fell personally on the king. [1]

Defoe’s reaction to The Foreigners is important, it indicates his dislike for the growing xenophobia in English Government and formulates part of his defence and promotion of King William III and his Monarchical governmental politics. Defoe on The Foreigners states that: ‘[it] fill’d me with a kind of Rage against the Book; and gave birth to a Trifle which I could hope should be met with so general an Acceptation as it did, I mean, The True-Born Englishman’ [2], he makes a clear reference to the link between The True-Born Englishman and Tutchin’s poem. (see PART II, p38-Line starting ‘And Huffs the King’) The Foreigners brought Defoe’s full attention to King William III; no longer was he to be just a background supporter of him. He became an active supporter writing several political tracts in defence of the king. In part Defoe felt the need to defend him because of the growing xenophobia in parliament that lacked gratitude to the Dutch. (see PART I, p12-line starting ‘He did not send’) In several sections of the poem, Defoe makes reference to the xenophobic sentiments in The Foreigners; he also satirises the lack of gratitude to the Dutch on several other occasions. (see PART II, page 33-line starting ‘that they’ll abuse’) Specifically concerning Tutchin’s publication, for Defoe ‘Tutchin and his poem made an easy target for Defoe’s satire, and he was hardly the only poet to find Tutchin’s attack upon the Dutch presence in England both narrow-minded and lacking in gratitude.’ [3]

John Tutchin, The Foreigners, available sources: As part of a subscription to Early English Books Online, the digital facsimile can be viewed at: link

(ESTC R29567)

There is a cost-free digital reproduction as part of Project Gutenberg at: link (please be aware this link takes you to The Augustan Reprint Society John Tutchin Selected Poems (1685-1700). The Foreigners is the final selected poem at the bottom of the page)

Daniel Defoe, An Appeal to Honour and Justice, available sources: as part of a subscription to Eighteenth Century Collections Online, the digital facsimile can be viewed at: link

(ESTC T70816)

There is a cost-free plain text version as part of Project Gutenberg at: link

King William III
Defoe’s intentions with the poem link to a wider remit than ‘Tutchin’s Dutch-bashing as aimed directly at William’s right to reign’. [4] While the xenophobic statements expressed in The Foreigners are addressed on several accounts in the poem, Defoe often turns the poem into a defence of King William III in relation to the events of the time and Defoe expresses his wider political motivations and beliefs. The True-Born Englishman has been described as ‘a very personal and heart-felt tribute to the King.’ [5] (see PART II, p51-line starting ‘Britannia’s song’) The poem expands ‘into a joyous wholesale denunciation of English chauvinism and ingratitude.’ [6] (see PART I, p11 and PART I, p12) It is upon this theme that Defoe attempts to pull apart so called English national identity with several satirical accounts of the true birth heritage of English people. (see PART I, p23-line starting ‘Since scarce one Family’) King William III’s Dutch heritage is an important aspect when considering much of the poem’s thematic approach to ideas of national identity; because the satirical accounts of national identity often relate to the narrow-mindedness towards Dutch heritage.

Defoe is critical of the idea that Englishmen boast of Norman ancestry, when ironically English national identity is made up of several different heritages; ‘the poem draws a circle around those able to laugh at the contradiction of tracing titles back to Norman conquerors’. [7] (see PART I, p14-Line starting ‘a True-Born Englishman of Norman Race?) His continual references to the Dutch suggests that he is defending King William III against those who argue against his right to reign; an Englishmen’s true identity is questionable, so for Defoe it made little difference that the king was from Dutch ancestry. This leads to a denunciation of English chauvinism reaching a ‘magnificent crescendo of comic insult’. [8] (see PART I, p14-Line starting ‘From the most scoundrel’) Defoe on several accounts using satire defines his distaste for the chauvinism in English politics; this chauvinism put King William III in a very difficult position concerning his military. The chauvinism in question saw the parliament of the late 17th century and early 18th century introduce a new law that insisted upon the removal of any person other than English from the military: ‘the final insult to William came in 1699, when parliament, indulging in its growing xenophobia, insisted on an army of native-born Englishmen’. [9] The further insult to the king saw his already politically depleted army reduced even further; the passing of this law forms part of the political undercurrents in Defoe’s poem. The depletion of his King William III’s army was catastrophic for Defoe, which led to him becoming a pro-army propagandist; ideologically King William III’s army was very important to him (see Defoe’s Political Theory and The Monmouth Rebellion).

Along with his political motivations Defoe was a true believer in King William III, he was the archetypal figure that formulates Defoe’s true political beliefs. In a heart-felt satirical pamphlet entitled The Mock Mourners. A Satyr, by the way of Elegy on King William following King William III’s death in 1702, Defoe shows his true devotion to him. (see PART II, p54-line starting ‘William’s the Darling Subject’) In general the pamphlet is attacking what Defoe called the mock mourners, inferring that those that mocked him when he was alive praise him when he is dead: ‘By Native Pride, and want of Temper led, /Never to value Merit till ‘tis Dead: /And then Immortal Monuments they raise,’ [10] (see PART II, p42-line starting ‘Englishman are ne’re contented’) Aside from his heart-felt tributes, Defoe defines in this pamphlet that King William III’s ‘Scepter he laid down’ [11] needs to be carried on after his death. This constitutes the idea that King William III was an extremely important part of Defoe’s ideological political movement because: ‘William’s the moving Centre of the whole/‘T had else a body been without a soul/Fenc’t with just Laws, impregnable it stands,/ And will forever last in Hones Hands.’ [12]

Daniel Defoe, The Mock Mourners. A Satyr, by the way of Elegy on King William, available sources: as part of a subscription to Eighteenth Century Collections Online, the digital facsimile can be viewed at: link

(ESTC T70834)

Unfortunately there is no stable cost-free version available currently.

The Glorious Revolution
So far the commentary has introduced the two major motivations for the writing and publishing of the The True-Born Englishman; namely Defoe’s reaction to The Foreigners which led to his defence and support of King William III. This section on The Glorious Revolution will help to contextualise why Defoe reacted to The Foreigners and believed in and supported King William III. The Glorious Revolution is an obvious factor that contributed to Defoe’s political theory and therefore had an influence on The True-Born Englishman.

The Glorious Revolution took place in 1688 and it saw King James II overthrown, which led to the appointment of William III (Dutch Stadtholder (steward) of Orange-Nassau) as King of England. (see PART II, p41-line starting ‘The Great Successor’) The revolution took place because of growing antipathy to King James II’s policies on tolerating religion. King James II was Roman Catholic, so when his son James Edward Stuart Francis was born, it meant that his daughter Mary a Protestant married to William III was no longer due in succession to the throne. This meant that a Roman Catholic dynasty in England was imminent.

On the subject ‘Defoe was to be the enthusiastic propagandist, political theorist, and economic prophet of the Glorious Revolution and for its hero, William III’. [13] The reason The Glorious Revolution was important for Defoe is because he believed that ‘Dissenters should have gained more from it’. [14] As briefly mentioned Defoe was a self proclaimed dissenter: ‘one who dissents and separates himself from any specified church or religious communion, especially from that which is historically the national church’. [15] In Defoe’s case he was a Protestant dissenter who disliked the idea of a Roman Catholic ruler like King James II, so The Glorious Revolution with the appointment of William III was important to him, because William III was a Protestant. Tutchin challenged indirectly King William III’s right to reign in The Foreigners; this in principle therefore challenged in Defoe’s mind the The Glorious Revolution. As described, this Revolution was important to Defoe so his defence of King William III partly links to his belief in the benefits of The Glorious Revolution. (see PART II, p44-line starting ‘no doubt we had seen’)

Defoe’s Political Theory and The Monmouth Rebellion
Defoe’s intentions with the poem go further than responding to The Foreigners and defending the king. Defoe understood and had ‘command of the intricacies of European politics and geography’ [16]. Defoe was aware of what was happening in Europe and he ‘understood England’s national identity and international role as inextricably linked to the wider European picture’. [17] This was not always a positive awareness, he was fearful of England becoming weak in peacetime and it is one of the many reasons that he fought and believed so deeply in King William III. He felt that King understood the need to keep a strong military even in peacetime (see The Standing Army Debate, European War and the Balance of Power). It is therefore important when reading The True-Born Englishman to consider ‘the context of Defoe’s ‘larger scheme’ of national and international politics.’ [18]

To contextualise how much emphasis Defoe placed on his political intentions; in the ninth edition, which included an explanatory preface, Defoe did not mention Tutchin’s poem at all, but ‘instead [he] stressed the general ideological basis of his work.’ [19] There were ten separate editions of The True-Born Englishman; with each new edition it focused more and more on the political message rather than as a response to Tutchin.

Defoe had strong political views on the relationship between the Monarch and his people. He was a pro-monarchy dissenter, so in More Short-Ways with the Dissenters he wrote: ‘I find a Declamation relating to the benefit of a single Person in a Common Wealth, wherin it is declar’d and prov’d from History and Reason, that Monarchy is the best Government’. [20] His ideological stance was mainly founded upon his political view that the country should be run by a Monarchical government that sets policies for the people and not a country run by an ‘urban power elite’ [21] (parliamentary government.) (see PART II, p47-line starting ‘The Government’s ungirt’) This was all very well but as mentioned in the section on The Glorious Revolution, Defoe’s ideological basis behind a Monarchical government needed a certain type of King. This is why The Glorious Revolution in 1688 was very important to Defoe’s political theories; there is evidence to suggest that prior to King William III, Defoe did not like the way in which the Monarchy controlled its people. He feared the idea of divine powers being attributed to a king, these principals were found in ‘Defoe’s retrospective assessments, here and elsewhere, of his nation’s experience under Charles II and James II [and they] reveal a mind troubled by the divinely absolute powers attributed to the king. […] popery and arbitrary power’. (see PART I-p8, line starting ‘Worship’d as God) [22] This culminated in his fear of control by foreign powers which he believed would happen under a Catholic ruler like King James II: ‘Catholicism and executive tyranny were feared to be the consequence of the accession of a Catholic prince to the throne of Protestant England in February 1685.’ [23] (see Preface, line starting ‘particular People,’) King William III was not divinely attributed to the throne, Defoe on this matter stated: ‘for I believe no Man in the World was ever the People’s King more than his present Majesty’ [24] Defoe’s fears were therefore initially settled by King William III’s appointment to the throne. (see PART II, p41-line starting ‘Their prayers heard’)

Defoe did not just write about his political theory, there is evidence to suggest he also actively took part in the Monmouth Rebellion. (see PART II, p65-line starting ‘thus my first’) The rebellion took place in 1685; it was an attempt by a group of civilians (mainly Protestants) who contested King James II, to remove him from the throne; it was led by the Duke of Monmouth and was unsuccessful in its plight. It was discovered through manuscripts of Defoe’s dated in 1683, that he possessed ‘a strident anti-Catholicism and [had] an interest in martial kings and the professionalism of soldiers’. [25] This was a contributing factor that saw Defoe travel and allegedly take up arms in the rebellion against the Roman Catholic King. What Monmouth Rebellion helps to contetextualise is the emphasis Defoe placed on his political thoughts. The ‘political and ideological influences working on the young Defoe can help to explain his later addiction to the image of the charismatic warrior king, who was to redeem English and European Protestantism.’ [26] This is why ideologically King William III was an important figure to Defoe’s politics. Manuel Schonhorn argues that: ‘The co-existence of religious radicalism, millennial expectations, and the mediation of a godly Protestant monarch in the history of the young Defoe and his family go far toward explaining his religio-political bent.’ [27] What one can take from this is that Defoe’s political thoughts relied on the figure of a Protestant King who was willing to fight for the people (see PART II, p54-line starting ‘He fights to save’) and infers Defoe’s dislike for a Roman Catholic Monarchy and shows his opposition to a governmental parliament. (see PART II, p44-line starting ‘How all their Persecuting’) Defoe’s involvement in The Monmouth Rebellion shows that he was willing to risk his life and the life of his family to fight for his ideological political beliefs.

Daniel Defoe, The True-Born Englishman. A Satyr. The Ninth Edition. With Explanatory Preface, available sources: as part of a subscription to Eighteenth Century Collections Online, the digital facsimile can be viewed at: link

(ESTC T70651)

It is difficult to find an authoritative cost-free ninth edition online, however please view the following for a similar edition with an explanatory preface. Available as part of the Luminariam Editions: link http://www.luminarium.org/editions/trueborn.htm
(Please note its authoritative nature is not confirmed)

Daniel Defoe, More Short-Ways with the Dissenters, available sources: as part of a subscription to Eighteenth Century Collections Online, the digital facsimile can be viewed at: link

(ESTC T32980)

(No cost-free text version currently available)

The Standing Army Debate, European War and the Balance of Power
‘Defoe believed that the Glorious revolution had established liberty firmly enough; what was needed now, he thought was the strength to protect it.’ [28] What can be understood from this is that Defoe did not trust that parliament could not rise up against the king’s Monarchy. There is an understanding that he feared without the king’s own army parliament was too strong and could prevent if necessary the king making war:

Defoe praised the change from the time when ‘the Misery and Slavery of the Common People’ was a fact of life, and stressed the significance of the growing wealth and independence of the House of Commons with its power of the purse, a power stronger than that of the sword. With such economic power the House can always prevent the King from making war. [29]

Defoe saw this as a problem and was opposed to the balance of power in favour of parliament; which led to him being involved in the standing army debate. (see PART II, p43-line starting ‘As laws Post Facto‘) To Defoe what was ‘more fearful than a standing Army is a parliament that goes against the will of the people and [has] a militia that has been used in the past’. [30] (see PART II, p45-line starting ‘Tyrannick Government’) It is upon this front that Defoe believed liberty had been obtained for the people after The Glorious Revolution and by not having a standing army some of this liberty was taken away. During the debate Defoe published a pamphlet entitled Some Reflections on a Pamphlet Lately Publish’d, Entituled, An Argument Shewing That a Standing Army Is Inconsistent with a Free Government which reflects his arguments in favour of a peacetime army (especially concerning that of the king’s) It was a response to John Trenchard’s An Argument Shewing That a Standing Army Is Inconsistent with a Free Government. Defoe showed his theoretical knowledge concerning the Monarchical government and its relationship with the army. For instance when he makes reference to an unattainable biblical state of affairs that he believes Trenchard is suggesting: ‘come ye blessed into freedom from Kings standing Armies […] like the Days when there was no King of Israel, but every Man, did what was right in his own Eyes’. [31] (see PART II, p40-line starting ‘In this to Ancient Israel’) Defoe in many ways argues throughout this pamphlet that a standing army is entirely necessary to maintain England’s safety and he falsifies any argument that Trenchard had against the king having his own army.

Defoe established himself as a fierce competitor against those arguing against a peacetime army. Lois G. Schwoerer suggests in an article titled ‘The Literature of the Standing Army Controversy, 1697-1699’ that Defoe was one of the main ‘Whigs’ arguing for the proposals of King William III-‘The controversy was carried on in the press by two groups of Whigs. Against a peacetime army were principally John Trenchard, Walter Moyle […] Arguing for the king’s proposal were chiefly the lord chancellor, John Somers [and] Daniel Defoe’ [32] The article is concerned with describing texts that contextualise the standing army debate. She briefly describes some of the important pro-standing army tracts that Defoe wrote, namely two editions of Some Reflections on a Pamphlet Lately Publish’d, as mentioned above. On the standing army debate, Trenchard was one of Defoe’s fiercest opponents. There is further evidence of their relationship with another reply to Trenchard by Defoe called A Brief Reply to the History of Standing Armies in England. These tracts provide an enriched contextual representation of how the debate was carried out.
The standing army debate is an important concept when considering further Defoe’s defence of King William III in relation to his political beliefs. Andreas Mueller describes that:

When read in the context of the standing army controversy, it becomes apparent that The True-Born Englishman was an at times rather thinly veiled attack on anti-army writers and their arguments, and constituted an important element of Defoe’s pro-army campaign.’ [33]

Following the Monmouth Rebellion and The Glorious Revolution, Defoe fully immersed himself in support of King William III as this commentary has shown. The standing army ideologically is important to Defoe when trying to maintain what he believes was the ideal Monarchical government through the king. What the standing army debate does is portray Defoe’s issues with the balance of power in England. He feared war from the powerful nations of Europe and ‘he wanted England to take its place among the powerful nations of Europe. A standing army was necessary for such a role at a time when the armies opposed to France had grown to 40,000 men during the war of the Grand Alliance’. [34] Defoe essentially was fighting Parliament on behalf of the king to allow the king to have his own personal army. Parliament resisted, saying it was unnecessary in peacetime as Defoe’s adversaries also argued. (see PART II, p40-Line starting ‘So jealous of’) Ideologically Defoe needed the king to have his own army to fit this archetypal image of the ‘warrior king, who was to redeem English and European Protestantism’ [35]. (see PART II, p46-line starting ‘To guide in War’) Defoe also felt a peacetime army was necessary to prevent a change in the balance of power; especially in cases of European war. (see PART II, p40-line starting ‘Harder to rule’)

(For a longer history of the standing army debate in relation to Defoe, Mueller’s The Public Voices of Daniel Defoe is available online, it contains a whole section on the debate, it starts with Chapter I to be specific)

Daniel Defoe, Some Reflections on a Pamphlet Lately Publish’d, Entituled, An Argument Shewing That a Standing Army Is Inconsistent with a Free Government, available sources: As part of a subscription to Early English Books Online, the digital facsimile can be viewed at: link

(ESTC R40379)

There is a cost-free digital facsimile as part of Queen’s University Library Archive: link https://archive.org/details/somereflectionso00defouoft

John Trenchard, An Argument Shewing That a Standing Army Is Inconsistent with a Free Government, available sources: As part of a subscription to Early English Books Online, the digital facsimile can be viewed at: link

(ESTC R16212)

There is a cost-free digital facsimile as part of Queen’s University Library Archive: link

Lois G. Schwoerer-‘The Literature of the Standing Army Controversy, 1697-1699’, available sources: unfortunately only available as part of a subscription to JSTOR, the full article can be viewed at: link

Daniel Defoe, A Brief Reply to the History of Standing Armies in England, available sources: As part of a subscription to Early English Books Online, the digital facsimile can be viewed at: link

(ESTC R215269)

There is a cost-free digital facsimile as part of Queen’s University Library Archive: link

Andreas Mueller, The Public Voices of Daniel Defoe, available sources: there is a cost free version as part of The University of Huddersfield online repository: link (Chapter I, starts on page 22)

Footnotes

[1] Defoe, Daniel An Appeal to Honour and Justice. London: printed for J. Baker, at the Black Boy in Pater-Noster-Row, 1715. [ESTC T70816, copy on ECCO]. p.6
[2] ibid, p.6
[3] Novak, Maximillian E Daniel Defoe: Master of Fictions. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001. p.150
[4] ibid, p.151
[5] Furbank P.N, Owens, W.R A Political Biography of Daniel Defoe. London: Pickering & Chatto, 2006. p.15
[6] ibid, p.15
[7] Backschneider, Paula R Daniel Defoe His Life. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1989. p.76
[8] ibid, p.16
[9] Mueller, Andreas A Critical Study of Daniel Defoe’s Verse. p.175
[10] Defoe, Daniel, The Mock Mourners. A Satyr, by the way of Elegy on King William. London: [s.n.], 1702. [ESTC T70834, copy on ECCO]. p.1
[11] ibid, p.4
[12] ibid, pp.4-5
[13] Novak, Maximillian E Daniel Defoe: Master of Fictions. p.91
[14] ibid, p.91
[15] Oxford English Dictionary, ‘Dissenter.’ [Online] Available from: http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/55414?redirectedFrom=dissenter#eid [Accessed 13/03/2014], definition b.
[16] Novak, Maximillian E Daniel Defoe: Master of Fictions. p.146
[17] Mueller, Andreas A Critical Study of Daniel Defoe’s Verse. p.173
[18] ibid, p.173
[19] ibid, pp.149-50
[20] Defoe, Daniel More Short-Ways with the Dissenters. London: [s.n.], printed in the year, 1704. [ESTC T32980, copy on ECCO] p.1
[21] Schonhorn, Manuel Defoe’s Politics; Parliament, Power, Kingship, and Robinson Crusoe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991. pp.9-10
[22] ibid, p.14
[23] ibid, p.10
[24] Defoe, Daniel Some Reflections on a Pamphlet Lately Publish’d, Entituled, An Argument Shewing That a Standing Army Is Inconsistent with a Free Government. London: printed for E. Whitlock near Stationers-Hall, 1697. [ESTC R40379, copy on EBBO] p.5
[25] Schonhorn, Manuel Defoe’s Politics, p.16
[26] ibid, p.16
[27] ibid, p.16
[28] Novak, Maximillian E Daniel Defoe: Master of Fictions. p.124
[29] ibid, p.124
[30] ibid, p.124
[31] Defoe, Daniel Some Reflections on a Pamphlet Lately Publish’d, p.6
[32] Schwoerer, Lois G ‘The Literature of the Standing Army Controversy, 1697-1699′. In: Huntington Library Quarterly, Vol. 28, No.3. California: University of California Press, 1965. Accessed from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3816707. [Accessed 27/02/2014] pp.188-89
[33] Mueller, Andreas A Critical Study of Daniel Defoe’s Verse. p.174
[34] Novak, Maximillian E Daniel Defoe: Master of Fictions. p.123
[35] Schonhorn, Manuel Defoe’s Politics. p.16

Contextual Commentary: Bibliography

Main Research Text
Defoe, Daniel The True-Born Englishman. a Satyr. London: Printed in the year, 1700 [i.e. 1701] [ESTC T70649, copy on ECCO]

Primary Contextual Research Sources
Backschneider, Paula R Daniel Defoe His Life. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1989.

Foxon, D.F, English Verse 1701-1750; Volume One. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975.

Foxon, D.F, English Verse 1701-1750; Volume Two. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975.

Furbank P.N, Owens, W.R A Political Biography of Daniel Defoe. London: Pickering & Chatto, 2006.

Furbank P.N, Owens, W.R A Critical Biography of Daniel Defoe. London: Pickering & Chatto, 1998.

Mueller, Andreas A Critical Study of Daniel Defoe’s Verse: Recovering the Neglected Corpus of his Poetic Work. New York: The Edwin Mellen Press, 2010.

Novak, Maximillian E Daniel Defoe: Master of Fictions. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001.

Schonhorn, Manuel Defoe’s Politics; Parliament, Power, Kingship, and Robinson Crusoe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991.

Secondary Contextual Research Sources

The Foreigners
Defoe, Daniel An Appeal to Honour and Justice. London: printed for J. Baker, at the Black Boy in Pater-Noster-Row, 1715. [ESTC T70816, copy on ECCO].

Tutchin, John The Foreigners. London: printed for A. Baldwin in Waricklane, MDCC [1700]. [ESTC R29567, copy on EBBO].

King William III
Defoe, Daniel, The Mock Mourners. A Satyr, by the way of Elegy on King William. London: [s.n.], 1702. [ESTC T70834, copy on ECCO].

The Glorious Revolution
Oxford English Dictionary, ‘Dissenter’. [Online] Available from: http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/55414?redirectedFrom=dissenter#eid [Accessed 13/03/2014], definition b.

Defoe’s Politics and The Monmouth Rebellion
Defoe, Daniel More Short-Ways with the Dissenters. London: [s.n.], printed in the year, 1704. [ESTC T32980, copy on ECCO]

Defoe, Daniel Some Reflections on a Pamphlet Lately Publish’d, Entituled, An Argument Shewing That a Standing Army Is Inconsistent with a Free Government. London: printed for E. Whitlock near Stationers-Hall, 1697. [ESTC R40379, copy on EBBO]

Defoe, Daniel The True-Born Englishman. a Satyr. The Ninth Edition. With Explanatory Preface. London: [s.n.], printed in the year MDCCI, [1701]. [ESTC 70651, copy on ECCO]

The Standing Army Debate, European War and the Balance of Power
Defoe, Daniel Some Reflections on a Pamphlet Lately Publish’d, Entituled, An Argument Shewing That a Standing Army Is Inconsistent with a Free Government. London: printed for E. Whitlock near Stationers-Hall, 1697. [ESTC R40379, copy on EBBO]

Defoe, Daniel An Argument Shewing, That a Standing Army, with Consent of Parliament, Is Not Inconsistent with a Free Government. London: printed for E. Whitlock near Stationers, 1698. [ESTC R20142, copy on EBBO]

Defoe, Daniel A Brief Reply to the History of Standing Armies in England. London: [s.n.], printed in the year 1698. [ESTC R215269, copy on EBBO]

Mueller, Andreas The Public Voices of Daniel Defoe. Huddersfield: The University of Huddersfield, 2005. Accessed from: http://eprints.hud.ac.uk/9142/1/417292.pdf [Accessed 22/02/2014]

Schwoerer, Lois G ‘The Literature of the Standing Army Controversy, 1697-1699. In: Huntington Library Quarterly, Vol. 28, No.3. California: University of California Press, 1965. Accessed from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3816707. [Accessed 27/02/2014]

Trenchard, John An Argument Shewing That a Standing Army Is Inconsistent with a Free Government. London : [s.n.], printed in the year 1697. [ ESTC R16212, copy on EBBO]

Leave a Comment