ABSTRACT
Robinson Crusoe is one of the great myths of the state of nature, incorporating elements of both the Lockean and Hobbesian versions of the concept along the way in what turns out to be a fascinating dialogue between the respective theories. 1 Crusoe is returned to the state of nature on his island Despair, forced to create a new society with 'Savage Wretches', as he perceives them to be, lurking on the boundaries of his living space.2 He must rediscover the process of constructing a society through his interaction with his environment, and, in effect, test Locke's model as he goes (Manuel Schonhorn's somewhat iconoclastic anti-Lockean reading of the narrative will be considered in due course). By the narrative's conclusion he has also arguably shown some Hobbesian propensities in establishing control over, first, the ertswhile 'Savage Wretch' Friday (to whom he appears an absolute sovereign), and then the assorted Spanish and Portuguese sailors similarly marooned on his island: thus Sara Soncini's claim that 'Crusoe's island might therefore be interpreted as an attempt to test the validity of Hobbes' picture of natural and social man', no less than Locke's.3 A state has been formed, and property rights asserted, in such a manner as to preclude any reversion to the insecurities of the state of nature that Crusoe had experienced at first hand while on his own. There is no suggestion that the island is to be treated as a common treasury for allcomers to share. By 'mixing' his labour with the virgin soil, Crusoe, in approved Lockean 'industrious' fashion, claims the right to ownership of the land.4 Even spending several years away from the island does not alter this 'right', Crusoe describing how on his return to visit the remaining inhabitants, 'I shar' d the Island into Parts with 'em', but, 'reserv' d to myself the Property of the whole' .5 Once 'mixed', always 'mixed', it would appear, as long as it leads to the common good.
