Criminal Conversations: Rogues, Words and the World in the Work of Daniel Defoe

Even as Daniel Defoe's roguish protagonists notably Moll Flanders and Colonel Jack try to separate themselves from illicit itinerants, they are implicated further in deviance. Moll and Jack both embody and exploit ambiguous moral and spatial arrangements, and use hybrid linguistic formulations, all of which collocate the roguish and the reputable. By brilliantly realizing this interpenetration of words and worlds, Defoe problematises eighteenth-century efforts to demarcate the illicit and itinerant along the lines of space, rank, gender and language. Such efforts facilitated deviant mobility as much as they demonised it. Much scholarship has attended to Defoe's representations of criminality and poverty. This article develops such research to re-position him in a tradition of rogue-writing that stylishly problematises normative discriminatory practices.

Tenant Right and Agrarian Society in Ulster 1600-1870

The book has been described by various Irish historians as "the definitive treatment of that most peculiar institution--the Ulster Custom--and its tangled relationship with irish land and politics" (Liam Kennedy), "a brilliantly reconceptualised sketch of the Irish land question" (David Miller). "All previous discussion," according to another reviewer, "must take second place to Dowling's exhaustive survey, which draws on the whole range of surviving estate records to examine the theory and practice of tenant right across three centuries" (Sean Connolly).

Early crime writing and the state: Jonathan Wild, Daniel Defoe and Bernard Mandeville in 1720s London

This article argues that the early development of crime writing needs to be understood in relation to the consolidation of the modern state. It demonstrates that London in the 1720s constitutes a significant moment in this early development for three main reasons. First, the period witnessed a crime epidemic which reached its climax in the 1720s and which precipitated a set of particularly aggressive counter-measures by the state; second, it saw the rise and eventual fall of the infamous Jonathan Wild who acted as both thief and surrogate policeman; and third, it was also marked by a surge in interests on the part of writers like Daniel Defoe and Bernard Mandeville in the related matters of crime and punishment. This article explores the ways in which accounts of crime and punishment in this period deployed and in some instances interrogated the rhetoric of social contract theory and writings on statecraft, particularly by Thomas Hobbes and Mandeville. But while the criminal biographies and gallows sermons produced by the Newgate prison’s ‘ordinaries’ provided crude and reductive accounts of the efficacy of the state, the article shows how two accounts of the life of Jonathan Wild (by Defoe and H.D) responded in highly complex ways to the issues of crime and policing and provided a consistently and self-consciously ambivalent reading of the state and state power. To conclude, I suggest that this ambivalence can be read as a critique of the impartial or neutral state and that it constitutes one of the key features of what we would later understand to be crime writing as a dedicated literary genre.

Keeping it in the Family: Surviving Political Exile, 1870-1917

A sentence of exile was a regular feature of the Russian revolutionary’s underground career. In order to survive this punishment and continue their struggle against Tsarism, revolutionaries relied on help from their fellow exiles, their party, the Political Red Cross and, often, their families. Historians have rarely acknowledged the role of kin in supporting the revolutionary movement and very few studies have noted the attempts by families to mitigate the worst aspects of a sentence of exile. This article explores the ways in which spouses and siblings, parents and children obtained concessions from the Tsarist authorities regarding their loved ones’ sentences of exile, helped off-set the poverty to which many exiles were reduced, and, above all, combated the sense of loneliness and depression to which those in exile were exposed. This article argues that such familial support had a collective and positive impact on revolutionaries’ experience of exile. More broadly it provides an illuminating case study of the blurred space between public and private which the revolutionary occupied and highlights the way in which the movement depended on help from sympathisers and family members in order to function effectively on a daily basis.