Classics and the Western Canon discussion
Swift - Gulliver's Travels
>
Week 4: Part 2: Chapters 5 - 8
date
newest »
newest »
Chapter 6I cannot but conclude the bulk of your natives to be the most pernicious race of little odious vermin that nature ever suffered to crawl upon the surface of the earth.The King's surprising conclusion seems harsh. Is it deserved?
I think one of the interesting examples of “differently large” verse is “differently small” is when the King of Lilliput commands Gulliver to reduce the island nation of Blefuscu to a province of Lilliput to which Gulliver refuses and is charged with treason and is sentenced to be blinded, compare this to when in Brobdingnag Gulliver offers to create gun powered so that the King can subdue his subjects, to which the King is horrified and threatens him under punishment of death if he tells anyone of this information.
David wrote: "Chapter 6I cannot but conclude the bulk of your natives to be the most pernicious race of little odious vermin that nature ever suffered to crawl upon the surface of the earth.
The King's surpri..."
I've been thinking about perspective while reading these first two parts of the work. Following up on a discussion in the previous thread (the pale blue dot), maybe Swift is challenging the reader to consider perspective. If perception is reality, then the perspective from which one sits colors that perception. In this first half of the book, Swift forces us to view the habits and customs of society from the macro and micro perspectives.
Perhaps Swift is accusing England of small-mindedness? What's more interesting is that Gulliver himself does not seem to challenge the king's views - not even to the reader. And, even if one subscribes to the belief that England is grand (or "large"), there are grotesque details that the English cannot see because of their size.
HisGirlFriday wrote: ". . .the most pernicious race of little odious vermin. . ." Gulliver himself does not seem to challenge the king's views - not even to the reader."I thought it was funny that in Chapter 6 before the king's expresses his judgment on the English that Gulliver defends the king's views with:
The King, who, as I before observed, was a prince of excellent understanding,Later in chapter 7, After the king expresses his views, Gulliver defends England and Europe's standing by the downplaying the King's understanding:
But great allowances should be given to a king who lives wholly secluded from the rest of the world, and must therefore be altogether unacquainted with the manners and customs that most prevail in other nations: the want of which knowledge will ever produce many prejudices, and a certain narrowness of thinking, from which we and the politer countries of Europe are wholly exempted. . .Gulliver is unaware he is producing his own prejudices by a want of knowledge and a narrowness of thinking, while at the same time condemning that very thing.
. . .I take this defect among them to have risen from their ignorance, by not hav ing hitherto reduced politics into a science, as the more acute wits of Europe have done...
...The learning of this people is very defective, consisting only in morality, history, poetry, and mathematics, wherein they must be allowed to excel. But the last of these is wholly applied to what may be useful in life, to the improvement of agriculture and all mechanical arts; so that among us it would be little esteemed. And as to ideas, entities, abstractions and transcendentals, I could never drive the least conception into their heads.
David wrote: "Gulliver is unaware he is producing his own prejudices by a want of knowledge and a narrowness of thinking, while at the same time condemning that very thing...."Well stated summary of one of the conundrums of human thought!
On his return trip, Gulliver tells the captain that:. . .when I first got into the ship, and the sailors stood all about me, I thought they were the most little contemptible creatures I had ever beheld. For, indeed, while I was in that prince’s country, I could never endure to look in a glass after my eyes had been accustomed to such prodigious objects, because the comparison gave me so despicable a conceit of my self.Gulliver seems to be having trouble adjusting to his "normal-sized" world again after Broddingnab, where he did not after Lilliput. What is going on here and why is Gulliver averse to the world now? Has he adopted the king's opinion on certain things? Stockholm Syndrome?
HisGirlFriday wrote: "If perception is reality, then the perspective from which one sits colors that perception. In this first half of the book, Swift forces us to view the habits and customs of society from the macro and micro perspectives..."This is a really good point. Perhaps Swift is arguing for the cultivation of a strong dose of cultural humility.
If our position impacts our perception, (and I believe it does,) then does it follow that what we deem worthy and admirable in our culture/society when viewed from our position within that culture/society may be viewed as less than admirable by someone with a different cultural/social lens?
As an outsider looking in, the king of Brobdingnag is able to point out to Gulliver the flaws and potential for abuse and corruption in his institutions--all of which have escaped gullible Gulliver until now, and the presence of which he disputes.
I'm not suggesting Swift advocates embracing diversity. I see this as a case of Swift critiquing the macro level and puncturing holes in cultural, social, and institutional arrogance. I see him as saying that our perception of the ostensible benefits of the way a particular society functions is contingent upon our location within that society and/or whether or not we are assessing its value from the outside.
David wrote: "Gulliver seems to be having trouble adjusting to his "normal-sized" world again after Broddingnab, where he did not after Lilliput. .."As a giant among little people, Gulliver couldn't do a thorough examination of their physical bits and pieces because they were too small. But as the little person among giants, Gulliver gets to see and smell up close and personal the bits and pieces of the human body-- the warts, the pores, the hairs, the blemishes, the bodily functions, etc. etc. It grosses him out. Once he has gained that knowledge, he can never "un-know" it. And he will perceive all human bodies with the same level of disgust.
I think this is a case of Swift puncturing arrogance on the micro level. Swift seems to be disabusing Gulliver of any notion he has of the superiority of humans as a species and/or their institutions.
David wrote: "Chapter 6I cannot but conclude the bulk of your natives to be the most pernicious race of little odious vermin that nature ever suffered to crawl upon the surface of the earth.
The King's surpri..."
I thought it was one of the most memorable lines in Book two! It IS pretty harsh but is fitting with the King's view of Gulliver's explanation of life in England, specifically government & the aristocracy. He shreds Gulliver's explanations as he points out the flaws. I had wondered where Swift's heart lies between Gulliver's & the King's view of the English race at this moment in time as this is a satirical piece of work.
Tamara said: I think this is a case of Swift puncturing arrogance on the micro level. Swift seems to be disabusing Gulliver of any notion he has of the superiority of humans as a species and/or their institutions. although you made this remark based on Gulliver's reactions to his observations up close & personal with Brobdingnags, it could equally explain Swift's description by the King about the English as annotated in my last comment. Yes?
Chris wrote: "it could equally explain Swift's description by the King about the English as annotated in my last comment. Yes?.."Yes!
For me this was the most enjoyable section of this book. The way that Swift makes Gulliver criticizes the English in an indirect way is genius.
HisGirlFriday wrote: "David wrote: "Chapter 6I cannot but conclude the bulk of your natives to be the most pernicious race of little odious vermin that nature ever suffered to crawl upon the surface of the earth.
The ..."
I think that Swift are criticising ethnocentrism. The europeans were masters in it, specially the english. They could only look to another society by comparison to their own's. Thus the colonialism. They (europeans) could not see the other societies by their own standards.
David wrote: " there are Gulliver’s “Toylet trials” with the maids of “honor”. The smells, the ugliness of extreme close-ups, the indiscretions and degradations. . . Who is brave enough to explain these events? I see why the children’s version is so abridged. Why is Gulliver careful to tell us,I cannot forbear doing justice to the Queen my mistress, and Glumdalclitch my nurse, whose persons were as sweet as those of any lady in England.
Is Gulliver defending his sponsors while Swift is taking a sarcastic shot at the ladies in England?"
Swift neither admired nor respected the maids of honor of his time. Patrick Delany, a friend of Swift's, wrote: "I well remember his making strange reports of the phraseologies of persons about the Court, and particularly the maids of honour." The maids of honor of the time took this passage as an insult. Swift, in a letter he wrote to Mrs. Henrietta Howard in the character of Gulliver, said: "The zeal you have shown for truth [in answering objections to the Travels] calls for my particular thanks, and at the same time encourages me to beg you would continue your goodness to me, by reconciling me to the maids of honour, whom they say I have most grievously offended. I am so stupid as not to find out how I have disobliged them. I will venture to affirm that if ever the young ladies of your Court should meet with a man of as little consequence in this country as I was in Brobdingnag, they would use him with as much contempt."
Rafael wrote: "For me this was the most enjoyable section of this book. The way that Swift makes Gulliver criticizes the English in an indirect way is genius."I agree. By describing in lofty language what the aristocracy, the bishops, the judges, etc. ought to be, he skillfully and cuttingly censures what they really are.
David quotes: "But great allowances should be given to a king who lives wholly secluded from the rest of the world, and must therefore be altogether unacquainted with the manners and customs that most prevail in other nations: the want of which knowledge will ever produce many prejudices, and a certain narrowness of thinking, from which we and the politer countries of Europe are wholly exempted. . ."Gulliver notes that due to this defect, the king would "let slip an opportunity put into his hands, that would have made him absolute master of the lives, the liberties, and the fortunes of his people."
It is thought that this has reference to a plan ascribed to George I of making his rule absolute by means of a standing army. The Tories, the friends of Swift, made the standing army a subject of severe attack in Parliament.
A general remark on the first two books which, although very obvious, I think should be made, in case anyone should think Swift was just exercising a vivid imagination. When human actions are ascribed to beings immensely small or large, there are few which do not seem contemptible, disgusting or horrible. Swift is attempting to make his readers examine themselves with attention and judge of themselves impartially, by suspending our habitual views of ourselves and looking at ourselves in a new light. This is clearly the author's intention. He was certainly engaged in more than writing an entertaining fable. When seen in this light the order and regularity of the book becomes very apparent. He is showing how our pride by making us blind to our true natures, results not only in ridiculous follies, but in the extensive calamity of our 'civilized' existence.
Donnally wrote: "He is showing how our pride by making us blind to our true natures, results not only in ridiculous follies, but in the extensive calamity of our 'civilized' existence..."Well put and a very good point.
Donnally wrote: "A general remark on the first two books which, although very obvious, I think should be made, in case anyone should think Swift was just exercising a vivid imagination. When human actions are ascri..."Well said. But I wonder where this kind of honest examination leads? Gulliver discovers he cannot rise above and avoid the maliciousness of human nature even with his great stature in Lilliput, and his diminutive stature and virtues are devalued and he is unable to avoid the "warts and all" of human nature in Brobdingnag. Will this lead Gulliver to reforms, as hoped for in the opening letter, or just disillusionment. What of his readers?
David wrote: ",....But I wonder where this kind of honest examination leads? ...What of his readers? "Well, here we are, 300+ years later.
The timelessness of Hogarth's illustrations of London ... wealth and squalor ....
In reading Asimov's annotated copy, I realized I have little thought about the "facts" that weren't known within their lifetimes by the Enlightenment thinkers of that late 1700's period, historic figures seemingly so learned. From Tristram Shandy, I remembered our discussion of how little was actually understood about conception -- the role (existence?) of egg as well as sperm. But this time, I've found myself stopping to ponder what was the significance of not knowing the whole continent of Australia existed on the face of the planet, that such was still not simply part of "common knowledge". How did that "ignorance" shape other thinking? What are the parallels for us today?
Lily wrote: "But this time, I've found myself stopping to ponder what was the significance of not knowing the whole continent of Australia existed on the face of the planet, that such was still not simply part of "common knowledge". ..."Let me put in spoiler format two of Asimov's notes that fed my above musings:
Reference is to a line back in Chapter One: "...we were driven by a violent Storm to the North-west of Van Diemen's Land...."(view spoiler)
Immediately following in Swift's text: "..., we found ourselves in the Latitude of 30 Degrees 2 Minutes South." (view spoiler)
Rafael wrote: "...They could not see the other societies by their own standards...."I love your phrase, Rafael! To me, it comments so profoundly on even our recent history as a group, let alone the world around us. And to say the same thing in a different way that perhaps illustrates a tiny bit the difficulties of words to communicate:
"They could see (judge) the other societies only by their own standards." -- where "They" and "their" have the same antecedent, whereas I perceive your antecedent of "their" is "the other societies" and of "They," the colonists/Europeans. (I prefer your wording, Rafael, even if I did have to stop to consider the grammar.)
Thank you, Lily, and sorry for the bad grammar. I should had be more explicit about who was the subject of each pronoun.
Rafael wrote: "Thank you, Lily, and sorry for the bad grammar. I should had be more explicit about who was the subject of each pronoun."No apologies. Not "bad grammar," Rafael. I couldn't/didn't figure out how to use English/American with the succinct clarity you did -- even if I had to stop and make sure I had grasped the intended meaning. Sometimes, that just seems to be the nature of language.
<3Thank you! English is not my first language but I try my best to communicate well.
Lily wrote: "Lily wrote: "But this time, I've found myself stopping to ponder what was the significance of not knowing the whole continent of Australia existed on the face of the planet, that such was still not..."Interesting note about Van Diemen's Land! I know it only from the Emily Dickinson poem "If you were coming in the fall," which is dated circa 1862. I didn't realize it was Tasmania--but maybe not called so in common usage right away, though it's entirely possible the Dickinson poem is misdated.
Kathy wrote: "Interesting note about Van Diemen's Land! I know it only from the Emily Dickinson poem "If you were coming in the fall," which is dated circa 1862. I didn't realize it was Tasmania--but maybe not called so in common usage right away..."https://interestingliterature.com/201...
From Wiki, Tasmania: "The island was initially part of the Colony of New South Wales but became a separate, self-governing colony under the name Van Diemen's Land (named after Anthony van Diemen) in 1825. Approximately 75,000 convicts were sent to Van Diemen's Land before transportation ceased in 1853. In 1854 the present Constitution of Tasmania was passed, and the following year the colony received permission to change its name to Tasmania."
Do Dickenson's words intend to allude to the penal colony aspect of the place? Why she favored one name versus the other is not obvious to me, but I'm not that careful a reader of poetry.
Honestly, it's a puzzling reference. I'm not sure what to make of it myself. Here's the poem, with one analysis of it. No reference to the penal colony. http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/eng...
Gulliver gives us examples of the various dangers he faced being so small in such a large world. Of the incident in the garden with the dog being hushed up so nobody would get into trouble with the queen, Gulliver adds this:
What is going on here? Is this just normal embarrassment, or is it something more? Gulliver seemed to take great pride in being “differently large” in Lilliput. How does he now seem to feel about being “differently small” in Brobdingnag?
Then there are Gulliver’s “Toylet trials” with the maids of “honor”. The smells, the ugliness of extreme close-ups, the indiscretions and degradations. . . Who is brave enough to explain these events? I see why the children’s version is so abridged. Why is Gulliver careful to tell us,Is Gulliver defending his sponsors while Swift is taking a sarcastic shot at the ladies in England?
The execution seems to be more of an example of how society or the justice system ultimately decides one’s status and deals with it; it seemed to be lacking enough premise and conclusion to be praise of condemnation of capital punishment, despite Gulliver’s aversion, overcome by curiosity, to it.
When we are told how the king only laughs at Gulliver when Gulliver explains how he would have dealt with the monkey in his own world, or in this world given a second chance we get the most profoundly sounding reflection of the chapter:After all of that, Gulliver seems disposed, or perhaps predisposed, to justify his jester-like reputation in this world by foolishly failing to jump over cow 💩