Classics and the Western Canon discussion
Swift - Gulliver's Travels
>
Week 6: Part III: Chapters 6-11
date
newest »
newest »
Chapter 8More Glubdubdrib. Trivia question: what should we get from the following passage?:
Homer was the taller and comelier person of the two, walked very erect for one of his age, and his eyes were the most quick and piercing I ever beheld.(view spoiler)
Chapter 9
I wasn’t sure what was going on in this chapter and the degrading behavior required to approach the king.
Chapter 10
In Gulliver’s plan for an immortal life of a Struldbrugg, Swift seems to recognize a fine line between wasteful and useful scientific goals,
In the second place, I would from my earliest youth apply my self to the study of arts and sciences, by which I should arrive in time to excel all others in learning. . . What wonderful discoveries should we make in astronomy, by outliving and confirming our own predictions, by observing the progress and returns of comets, with the changes of motion in the sun, moon and stars.Gulliver’s happy imagining of living the immortal life of a Struldbrugg is disabused by a devastating and fantastically realistic update on the consequences of the Tithonus myth; Tithonus was granted immortality but not eternal youth to go along with it. However, since Gulliver expresses scientific hopes, I suspect something else may be going on here.
Chapter 11
Gulliver once again returns home by way of Japan, rather abruptly.
During his visit to Glubbdubdrib in Chapt. 7, Gulliver praises Brutus and five others. But of the six who are worthy of his praise, there is only one Christian in the lot—Sir Thomas More. Is this Swift taking a jab at Christianity by excluding other Christians? A jab at religion? And why does he select Sir Thomas More for praise? Is it because he wrote Utopia? Or because he took a strong position against Henry VIII for which he was put on trial and executed? Some other reason?More was a Catholic who refused to repudiate the authority of the Pope. He would not support the annulment of Henry’s first marriage or his claim to be the supreme head of the church. I’m wondering why Swift selected him as the only Christian figure for praise. Any ideas?
I never really heard of the practice of Fumi-e (踏み絵) before reading about it here. Did Swift know about the practice first hand or did he hear about it?Why do people think Swift choose to end this part of the book with the detail of Fumi-e, trampling upon the crucifix?
Mike wrote: "I never really heard of the practice of Fumi-e (踏み絵) before reading about it here.Fumi-e is a pivotal plot point in the Martin Scorsese film, Silence (2016) https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0490215/
Mike wrote: "Why do people think Swift choose to end this part of the book with the detail of Fumi-e, trampling upon the crucifix?"
Asimov annotations on the subject:
In this section of the book, [Swift] consistently blackens the Dutch at every opportunity. England and the Netherlands, both Protestant, were allied in the War of the Spanish Succession against the Catholic Powers of France and Spain. However, it was a Whig war and a Whig alliance and Swift hated both. Tory animus against the Dutch was based on the fact that they continued to be commercial rivals of England. Furthermore, Dutch tolerance of diversity in religion undermined the Tory concept of a national church. . .The Dutch, aware of the enormous profits they made in their Japanese trade, and further aware that the anti-Christian games the Japanese forced them to play did them no physical harm, routinely obliged the Japanese and kept the profits. Swift, who is anti-Dutch, is delighted to make a point of this.Recall the Dutch Pirate in part 3, chapter 1 who tried to get Gulliver killed, but only succeeded in getting him thrown into the sea in a small canoe with only 4 days of supplies. Near the end of Chapter 11 Gulliver says,
For [my interpreter] assured me, that if the secret should be discovered by my countrymen, the Dutch, they would cut my throat in the voyage.Asimov – Again Swift points out that the Dutch are less generous and “Christian” than the pagans are.
As we finish up Part 3 and head into the last Part, I notice we are, and justifiably so, spending a lot of time discussing the work as a satire. How is the work holding up so far for the other genres it is claimed to cover?1. Novel - Is it a Novel, or not?
2. Children's literature - Probably not.
3. Science Fiction
4. Parable
5. Fantasy/Adventure Fiction
6. Utopia/Dystopia
7. Post (?)-Colonialism
8. Environmentalism
9. Humor - is it as funny to us as it might have been to Swift's contemporary audience?
Are Gulliver's travels a series of journeys commonly used in literature as a symbolic fronts for journeys of self-discovery, or are they something else? Has Gulliver grown or changed at all?
I find the struldbrugs one of the most touching episodes in GT. It is also prophetic. The closing years of Swift's life are remarkably predicted by this mournful picture. Lord Orrery said it best in his "Remarks on Swift:""The description of the struldbrugs is an instructive piece of morality; for, if we consider it in a serious light, it tends to reconcile us to our final dissolution. Death, when set in contrast to the immortality of the struldbrugs, is no longer the king of terrors; he loses his sting; he appears to us a friend, and we cheerfully obey his summons, because it brings certain relief to the greatest miseries. It is in this description that Swift shines in a particular manner. He probably felt in himself the effects of approaching age, and tacitly dreaded the period of life in which he might become a representative of those miserable mortals."
For a similar, but more humorous, comment on growing old, I recommend Swift's "Resolutions When I Come To Be Old:" http://civilizationis.com/smartboard/...
By the way, this online version requires some editing. In this version all the resolutions are prefaced by "Not to." However, in Swift's original, the resolution beginning "Desire some good . . ." is prefaced by "To."
Thanks for that link, Donnally. Enjoyable as well as short and to the point.Not to, "Desire some good Friends to inform me which of these Resolutions I break, or neglect, & wherein; and reform accordingly," is more humorous.
As read by Sir Alec Guinness is a pleasant way to spend 2 minutes take those resolutions in.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nJvK...
I read the Struldbrugs passages several times. I think I used the word devastating to describe them above. Along with destroying any idea of living forever, it doesn't give one much to look forward too. It definitely raises the bar on the wish for immortality to include remaining healthy and youthful.
David wrote: "It definitely raises the bar on the wish for immortality to include remaining healthy and youthful."You remind me of the carelessness of Eos:
"Tithonus was a Trojan prince in Greek mythology, son of King Laomedon of Troy and the water nymph Strymo. Eos, the Titan goddess of dawn, kidnapped Tithonus along with Ganymede, in order to make them her lovers. She then asked Zeus to grant Tithonus immortality, but did not think of asking to grant him eternal youth too. As a result, Tithonus aged and did not die, resulting in his strength wilting away to the point that he could no longer move his arms. All he could do was babble continuously; in the end, he turned into a cicada, hoping that death would come for him as well." https://www.greekmythology.com/Myths/...
The stories at least speak to the desirably to not forget our physical health/stamina as we journey through the challenges of Covid?
Lily wrote: "David wrote: "It definitely raises the bar on the wish for immortality to include remaining healthy and youthful."You remind me of the carelessness of Eos:
"Tithonus was a Trojan prince in Greek..."
That is exacly what I was alluding to when I wrote, [a] fantastically realistic update on the consequences of the Tithonus myth. . . Turning into a circada seems pretty weak next to Swift's filling in of the details.
David wrote: "That is exacly what I was alluding to when I wrote, ..."OOps, I didn't link back to @2 after reading @8 ..... Just was more having a flashback to Ovid, or wherever it was I encountered the thoughtless goddess who failed to take adequate care of her beloved.
Tamara wrote: "And why does he select Sir Thomas More for praise? Is it because he wrote Utopia? Or because he took a strong position against Henry VIII for which he was put on trial and executed? Some other reason?"The common thread Gulliver is judging by seems to be by what he calls the most consummate virtue, the greatest intrepidity and firmness of mind, the truest love of his country and general benevolence for mankind. as demonstrated by dying, or killing your own offspring, for those virtues.
Junius Brutus is a sixth-century b.c. Roman consul who chose love of country over family in ordering the death of his own two sons as traitors.
Marcus Junius Brutus who assassinated Julius Caesar. After being defeated at the battle of Philippi, he committed suicide by running into his own sword being held by two of his own men
Socrates was condemned to death and died in Athens in 399 B.C.
Epaminondas was a Theban leader against the Spartans in the mid-fourth century b.c. who died in action.
Cato the Younger was a Roman Senator unwilling to live in a world led by Caesar and refusing even implicitly to grant Caesar the power to pardon him, he committed suicide.
Sir Thomas More, author of Utopia, held to his principles, refusing to recognize Henry VIII as the head of the English church and was executed in 1535.
David wrote: "Tamara wrote: "And why does he select Sir Thomas More for praise? Is it because he wrote Utopia? Or because he took a strong position against Henry VIII for which he was put on trial and executed? ..."Thanks for the clarification, David.
I've been thinking about David's question of whether this is a novel or not and finally had time to dig up E. M. Forster's definition of the novel from his seminal Aspects of the Novel. Forster quotes the French critic Abel Chevalley (with the requisite dig at French critics), who defines the novel as "a fiction in prose of a certain extent." Forster adds that perhaps the "extent should not be less than 50,000 words." It's an intentionally broad definition for a form he calls "a formidable mass" that is "amorphous." He goes on to refute the idea that a novel must be English or even written in English (because: Tolstoy) and rejects pinning any particular time period to it as well by pairing passages from novelists far apart in time that bear resemblances to one another.
I can't find the reference, but as I recall, he basically sets as the novel's parameters history on the one side and poetry on the other. If it's something inbetween, it's a novel. And (I did find this part), ultimately, the "final test of a novel will be our affection for it."
So, it seems that as far as E. M. Forster is concerned, Gulliver's Travels is, doubtless, a novel.
My burning question at the end of this is: Do you have an "affection" for this novel? Is it, for you, "sogged with humanity"? Does it give you "uplift" or "downpour" (all Forster's terms), or nothing much at all?
This whole discussion is very interesting to me, because GT seems to defy any of the categories one wants to place it in. It is a vituperative satire written for intelligent adults that is read with enjoyment by children who miss all the satire. Formally it is a perfect work of science fiction, but it lacks the speculative element that is crucial to the modern genre. The genre Swift meant to evoke was the one which was fashionable at his time of traveler's tales. This is evoked by the narrative frame, the imagery it is stocked with and the maps that appear in it. The character of Gulliver is also deceptively simple. He is both simple and sly, rash and cowardly. He is one of the most cleverly fabricated heroes in English literature. It is, of course, a mistake to identify him with Swift, but it's impossible for the reader not to identify with Gulliver.
Early on I said that GT is a novel, because it has an overarching structure and depth; it is not simply four distinct episodes. It is designed in such a way that the reader is drawn more and more deeply into Swift's web. The first episode has an innocent playfulness, and without it the work would be seen to be overwhelmingly dark. The second is a clear reversal of the first in terms of scale. The third illustrates what our reason is worth, and the fourth what our animal nature is worth.
It is a powerful satire that has gained in meaning since the the age in which it was written. It is a work of rare wit written in deceptively clear prose. Can one feel "affection" for this novel? Somehow, affection doesn't seem to be the correct word. It has evoked all manner of responses. Thackeray called it, "a monster, gibbering shrieks and gnashing imprecations against mankind -- tearing down all shreds of modesty, past all sense of manliness and shame; filthy in word, filth in thought, furious, raging, obscene." Swift quoted another response of an Irish bishop in a letter he wrote to Pope, who declared he scarcely believed a word of it. It doesn't seem to fit in any genre and is defiantly unique.
I am hopelessly behind, after reaching the second half of the book I dropped the pace. Do not know whether it is accidental or the problem in how the book has changed. Imo, it became very straightforward and aggressive in imposing the author's ideas and lost all the subtleness in a satire of the first part. It still has interesting moment but generally Swift became forceful in representing vices.
When we get to the political projectors, instead of providing obvious absurdities he gives us some meritorious ideas and calls them absurd unheard of impossibilities:How does this “meritocracy of a sort” compare to the Lilliputian preference for morals over ability?
After listening to the audiobook, I needed my own flapper to see what was going on here:(view spoiler)[ Tribnia is an anagram for Britain, and Langden is an anagram for England. (hide spoiler)]Why does Gulliver disguise these locations?
Chapter 7
Glubbdubdrib, is an island of sorcerers is an island of sorcerers that conjure up famous dead people for Gulliver to question. This reminds me of the ancient Greek hero who travels to Hades for some critical bit of information from the dead. The takeaway here is that history is often unreliable. What is ironic about Gulliver’s statement comparing the Roman Senate to a more modern representative, i.e, British Parliament? (view spoiler)[If history is so often unreliable and wrong, isn’t a bias for the ancient over the modern even more suspect? (hide spoiler)]