Gulliver's Travels: Jonathan Swift 1726

 Gullivers Travels & A Modest Proposal by Jonathan Swift | Goodreads

A Review

I've broken into another classic and found the usual plethora of editions in the Goodreads catalog. I have the Franklin Mint Edition from the mid 80's which isn't listed in Goodreads. It's a leather-bound edition with gold edged pages that are thicker than normal. The type face seems like Times New Roman, but an older variety. Gives the text a period feel. The book is beautiful. It is so well constructed. You're not afraid to crack the binding, it just falls open to the page you want to read. It's truly a pleasure to hold in your hands while you read.

 

I don't think Gulliver's Travels needs an introduction. It wasn't required reading in any of the schools that I attended, but I'm sure there are several with it on the reading list. Published in 1725, it's hailed as a satirical masterpiece that holds insight into not only the period it was published but is still relevant today. Or so I'm told.

 

The book starts with an introduction by the publisher, followed by a disclaimer written by the author dated from publication. The publisher attests to the character and honesty of the author and the tale he tells. The author responds with a clarification in spelling and pronunciation of some of the names and places in the published edition. The first satire of the book is that it is written as a travelogue. It was fashionable amongst the literate classes to go abroad, visiting far lands and exotic kingdoms, return home and then write a book of their adventures for the masses. I'd compare their travelogue to the Lonely Planet Guides you can find today. Gulliver is trained as a ship’s doctor in the English merchant marine. He’s not a noble but a professional trained in a well-paid in demand position in an exploding industry. He signs onto merchant ships as a senior member of the crew and then heads out for adventure.

 

The first and most famous is the voyages is to the country of Lilliput. We've all seen the Lilliputians and are familiar with the story. It surprised me. All the Hanna-Barbara type retellings left out the part where Gulliver talks about having to use the bathroom. Then there’s the passage where he puts out the palace fire by pissing on it. Pissed off the Queen real bad.

 

In trying to focus my criticism of "the required reading list" portion, I went online and found a free study guide for this book. I just want to know what the average, generic take on this book was.

 

I've completed the tale of Gulliver's travels to Lilliput. The symbolism of feces in the story refers to the weakness of the flesh. Or so says the study guide. This was a satire of the of the English Court life where ministers are chosen on their ability to do circus acts and not the competency of the candidate. Again, some of the tale surprising, the tone was not. I'll need to read on.

 

There are in fact, four voyages. Each of the voyages carries Gulliver off to strange and previously undiscovered peoples. I've moved onto the land of giants, Brobdingnag. This is a silly book. The land of giants is where he satirizes the learned men of the court. I'm trying to see the satire but it’s murky, I don't know much about the institutions he's satirizing. I've gone to the study guide for the analysis of what the message is supposed to be. There is the message of size; Gulliver is oversized and powerful in one land and weak and helpless in the second. So in the end it’s the ability to do violence that counts. There's a bunch of other stuff I could discuss but it's not really a good read. We're so distant from the world it was published in.

 

 

Completed reading. That was awful. I'm not all that interested in reviewing each of the voyages, they just descend into absurdity. I've read through the Analysis of the study guide I picked out and then I sat down to think. Msgr. Swift relates a world where there are only monarchies, and the kings are all wise and noble men. They are surrounded by sycophants and neer-do-wells, or so accuses the author. All descriptions of representative government are ridiculed as more of the same chaos and corruption. All the societies he visits are hierarchical and patriarchal and all suffer the same maladies of the society of England. There are always servants and slaves and beasts of burden. Women are treated as second class citizens and property. A woman’s only asset is their virtue. Gulliver brags about the English "constitution" and its representative legislative assemblies. One of the wise kings he visits shreds Gulliver's pride in his country by calling out all the corruption and stupidity. Gulliver is offended but holds his tongue. Ya know courtly manners.

 

The largest exception I take with the study guide is its conclusion that Gulliver descended into a kind of madness at the end of his travels. During his travels he discovered a society where the horses were intellectuals and the Yahoos, humans, were portrayed as violent chimpanzees. The beasts of burden in this society were the Yahoos. It was real 1725 zoology. Gulliver called this horse society great and noble because of the lack of lying, duplicity, corruption, etc. A description of a utopian society. Grouped with the barbaric Yahoos, because although Gulliver was civilized, he was still Yahoo; a council was held between King Horse and his enlightened honest virtuous horse ministers, and Gulliver was asked to leave.

 

Gulliver accepts exile from this utopia as a wise judgement. He was a yahoo after all. He then went on to list all the pre-enlightenment drivel. Truth, justice, honesty equity of all men. All the things that human society is supposed to aspire to but ends in miserable failure. The study guide says that Gulliver has actually rejected all the things that make us human and that the guide’s concluding point. Whatever.

 

All these books carry the same message. It's not that all men are created equal. White men of quality stock, educated, successful in commerce and property owners were equal to those of noble birth. And since it was the merchant class's money that was financing the aristocracy, they should have an equal say in how things are done. At no point in the narrative do these virtues apply to all men or any woman. There was still a need for servants and slaves. There was, after all, a natural order of things.

 

In the end I need to conclude that I have no idea as to what this book was. It was a first attempt at public satire? You start dissecting this book in the 21^st century and you end up with a bunch of pieces parts that don’t fit together. I don’t get it. This is an example of what went wrong with the Enlightenment. Swift wasn’t arguing for any kind of democracy or the abolition of aristocracy, he was arguing for a reform of what it meant to be an aristocrat.