Gulliver's Travels

The following are supplementary material designed to augment our enjoyment of Swift's Gulliver's Travels, which engages directly in philosophical, political, cultural, and nationalistic questions of early eighteenth century.

Personalities

Sir Robert Walpole (one of the targets of Swift's satire) and a major political figure of the period

Sir Robert Walpole by Arthur Pond  © Walpole was a British Whig statesman, considered to the first holder of the office of prime minister, who dominated politics in the reigns of George I and George II.
Robert Walpole was born on 26 August 1676 in Houghton, Norfolk into a wealthy landowning family. He was educated at Cambridge University and in 1701 became member of parliament for Castle Rising in Norfolk, where his father had previously been MP. He rose rapidly, becoming a member of the Admiralty Board, secretary of war and, in 1709, treasurer of the navy. His rise was temporarily halted by the Tories, who came into power in 1710. In 1712, they accused him of corruption and he was briefly imprisoned.
In 1714, George I came to the throne. George distrusted the Tories, whom he believed opposed his right to the throne, and as a result the Whigs were in the ascendant again. In 1715, Walpole became first lord of the treasury and chancellor of the exchequer. He resigned in 1717 after disagreements within his party but in 1720 was made paymaster general. He avoided the scandal that surrounded the collapse of the South Sea Company and was subsequently appointed first lord of the treasury and chancellor of the exchequer again. In this position he effectively became prime minister, although the term was not used at the time. He remained in this position of dominance until 1742.
Walpole consolidated Whig power through a system of royal patronage. He pursued a policy of peace abroad, low taxation and reducing the national debt and he knew the importance of keeping parliament on his side. He was also accused of bribery and corruption in his efforts to retain power. After George I's death in 1727, Walpole was briefly superseded by George II's favourite, Spencer Compton, but succeeded in returning himself to favour, partly through the support of the new queen, Caroline. In 1735, George II made Walpole a gift of 10 Downing Street, now the permanent London residence of the British prime minister.
Opposition eventually began to develop within Walpole's own party, and a trade dispute with Spain was used by his critics to force him to declare war in 1739, known as the War of Jenkins' Ear. A poor general election result in 1741 made his position more unstable. A number of Whig politicians opposed Walpole's conduct of the war and he resigned in February 1742. He was created earl of Orford in the same year and continued to maintain influence over George II. Walpole died on 18 March 1745.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/walpole_robert.shtml

Henry St. John Bolingbroke (1678—1751)

Henry St. John Bolingbroke was born in Battersea in 1678. He was educated at Eton and Oxford, after which he traveled about two years on the continent. In 1700, shortly after his return, he married the daughter of Sir Henry Winchcomb, from whom he soon separated. Up to this period, he was chiefly known for his extreme dissipation but, after entering parliament in 1701, he devoted himself to politics, joined the Tory party, and soon made himself prominent as an orator. In 1704 he was made secretary of war and retained this office until 1708 when the Whigs came into power, after which he retired from politics and applied himself to study. After resignation, Bolingbroke retained great influence as the queen’s favorite counselor. On the fall of the Whig party in 1710, he was made secretary of state for foreign affairs. In 1712, he was called to the house of lords by the title of Viscount Bolingbroke and in 1713, against the wishes of nearly the entire nation, concluded the peace of Utrecht. Having previously quarreled with his old friend Harley, now the Earl of Oxford and his most powerful rival, he contrived his dismissal in July 1714. Bolingbroke immediately proceeded to form a strong Jacobite ministry in accordance with the well-known inclinations of his royal mistress, whose death a few days after threw into disorder his dangerous and unprincipled schemes. The accession of George I was a deathblow to Bolingbroke’s political prospects, on August 28 he was deposed from office, in March 1715 he fled to France and, in August 1715 he was attainted. For some time he held the office of secretary of state to the Pretender, but his restless and ambitious spirit yearned for the ‘large excitement’ of English politics. Bolingbroke’s efforts to obtain a pardon were not successful and he retired to a small estate which he had purchased near Orleans. In 1718 his first wife died and, in 1720, he married the rich widow of the Marquis de Vilette.
A prudent use of this lady’s wealth enabled him to return to England in September 1724. His property was restored to him, but he was never permitted to take his seat in parliament. He therefore removed himself to his villa at Dawley, near Uxbridge, where he occasionally enjoyed the society of Swift, Pope, and others of his old friends with whom he had corresponded in his exile. It was at Dawley where Bolingbroke diversified his moral and metaphysical studies by his attacks on the ministry in his periodical the Craftsman, in which the letters forming his Dissertation on Parties first appeared. In 1735, finding his political hopes clouded forever, he went back to France and continued to live there until 1742. During his second residence abroad, he wrote his Letters on the Study of History in which he violently attacked the Christian religion. He died on October 1, 1751, after a long illness. His talents were brilliant and versatile; his style of writing was polished and eloquent; but his fatal lack of sincerity and honest purpose, and the low and unscrupulous ambition which made him scramble for power with a selfish indifference to national security, hindered him from looking wisely and deeply into any question. His philosophical theories are not profound, nor his conclusions solid, while his criticism of passing history is worthless.

Bolingbroke’s philosophical writings were mostly unprinted until after his death, when David Mallet published a five-volume collection of Bolingbroke’s works. The philosophical portions of this collection display his dependence on Locke, who Bolingbroke acknowledged as his “master.” Using Locke’s ideas and his own, Bolingbroke attempts to explain how one attains knowledge and what its limits are, as well as asserting his own beliefs about God and religion. In doing so, he makes virulent attacks on previous philosophers such as Plato, Malebranche, and Berkley.
Following Locke, Bolingbroke distinguishes between ideas of sensation and ideas of reflection. Borrowing further from Locke, he calls these “simple ideas” and says they are the materials out of which complex ideas are made. He goes on to say that although one may not understand the process by which objects produce sensory perceptions, one can know they do so. Likewise, one may not know how the will causes action, such as the movement of an arm, but this does not hinder one from knowing it is the will which causes it. He presents these beliefs as clear and obvious and in no need of being questioned. Bolingbroke gives less power, than does Locke, to the mind concerning its ability to combine ideas within itself, putting this power in nature instead. Bolingbroke also maintains that nature (the observable world) serves as a reliable guide, and error comes when one uses one’s faculties out of accordance with nature.
Bolingbroke is known for being a Deist. He asserts there is a God, and proving this by reason is possible. However, this God is not at all like humans, and Bolingbroke speaks of anthropomorphism with contempt. Instead, he says God is so dissimilar to human beings, the distance between them is unimaginable and no comparison between the two is possible. Bolingbroke uses the cosmological argument to demonstrate there is a God, but goes on to assert that this God is omnipotent and omniscient and always does what is best. (Bolingbroke even claims this is the best of all possible worlds.) In order to defend his view of God’s transcendence, Bolingbroke says that while one can be certain God knows everything, one can never comprehend the way in which He knows things, and goes as far as to say God’s manner of knowing cannot be understood by human beings. God’s morality is equally beyond human understanding. Our moral values are based solely on our existence as social beings who cannot live lives of isolation or follow a path of pure selfishness. These morals can be discovered by reason. While they arise out of the nature of things created by God, they are in no way indicative of a divine sense of morality. God created the world, and the nature of the world determines morality. However, this nature does not reflect the character or nature of God.
Bolingbroke states Christianity was originally a “complete” and “very plain system of religion,” was actually no more than the “natural religion,” and Jesus did not teach anything more than could be discovered by reason. Bolingbroke expresses regret that Christian teachings did not remain at their initial, simple level, and wishes they had never been corrupted by such systems as Platonism, which he regards as the product of mere imagination. His understanding of religion furthermore denies the validity of prayer by insisting one could not come into contact with one’s deity, denigrates the importance of the crucifixion in Christianity, and suggests one cannot know whether or not there is a soul which survives the death of the body.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/bolingbr/

Robert Harley, Earl of Oxford

Robert Harley, Earl of Oxford, was a senior political figure in the reign of Queen Anne. Harley became her senior minister and acted as Secretary of State (1704 to 1708) and Lord Treasurer (1711 to 1714). The death of Anne and the succession of the Hanoverian George I effectively ended Harley's political career.

Robert Harley was born on December 5^th 1661, the son of the moderately Puritan Sir Edward Harley who had been a supporter of Parliament during the English Civil War. Harley had a Puritan upbringing at the Haymarket Dissenting Academy and in 1682 attended the Middle Temple. In 1688, he accompanied his father in his capture of Worcester for William of Orange – the future William III.

When William III was king, Harley served as a backbench MP with the Country Whigs. These were men who had a great deal of sympathy for the rural way of life as opposed to the urban way of living. Harley, a country squire, would have fitted in naturally with this group. Harley was a great believer in honest and open government and he developed a hatred of political corruption - something that he associated with those in the finance and commercial houses of the City of London. Harley himself became a very skilful political manager and while he was associated with the Country Whigs, he was not a party person. Harley became an expert on constitutional history and his reputation was such that aged just 29 he was appointed to the Public Accounts Institution – the accepted institution of governmental opposition. BY 1695, Harley was acknowledged as its leader.

He, along with others, formed the New Country Party that historians view as the embryonic Tory Party of Queen Anne’s reign. Made up of Tories and Whigs, its members internally bickered on a variety of issues but managed by Harley, it became a major player in English politics. In February 701, Harley was appointed Speaker of the House by the king – a royal recognition of his managerial ability and the political status he now held.

Under Queen Anne, Harley became one of the Triumvirate – three men who dominated politics at that time. Marlborough was the military heart of the three; Sidney Godolphin was Lord Treasurer and used his political skill to raise the funding for the Spanish War of Succession while Harley was the effective political manager, first as Speaker and then as Secretary of State.

One of the ways that Harley used to manage Parliament was to create a large network of political informers that left him as “the best informed politician of his day.” (E N Williams)

Domestically, the most important issue that Harley was associated with was his role in piloting through the Act of Union in 1707 with Scotland. In the field of foreign affairs, his most important input was to ensure that reluctant politicians financed the War of Spanish Succession.

Harley became an adept non-party manager. He brought both moderate Tories and Whigs into government so that both parties would feel a sense of ownership of any decisions made. However, he fell out with Marlborough and Godolphin – both of whom shared his belief in being a non-party man – over his cousin Mrs Abigail Masham. For many years Queen Anne had as her favourite the highly influential Sarah Churchill, wife of Marlborough. There is little doubt that Sarah was the dominant personality in the relationship but her position was threatened and then taken over by Mrs Masham. Both Godolphin and Marlborough were concerned at this development and used their influence over the Queen to get Harley dismissed in February 1708.

By 1710, all those politicians in Westminster dissatisfied with the way politics was going rallied around Harley as he was seen as the natural leader of the opposition. Their primary criticisms were high taxation, corruption via the use of ‘placemen’ and the desire of the Whigs to line their own purses during the War of Spanish Succession which saw them deliberately prolong the war in the eyes of those who rallied behind Harley. Their beliefs matched the mood of a war weary nation. The trial of Henry Sacheverell acted as the spark to rally the poor of London. The so-called ‘Sacheverell Riots’ in London spurred Anne into action as no one wanted to confront the fear of social unrest. Between 1710 and 1711, Godolphin and Marlborough were dismissed and Harley led the government. A general election called at the same time returned a Tory majority to the Commons. Between 1710 and 1714, Harley was at the peak of his political powers.

Harley’s popularity increased still further after a failed assassination attempt on him by a French émigré called Antoine de Guisard on March 8^th 1711. The fact that this attempt had been done by a foreigner brought Harley even more sympathy. Anne created Harley Earl of Oxford in May 1711. At home Harley, as Lord Treasurer, stabilised the economy and proved to the City that Tories were as able to do this as the Whigs. Abroad, he ended Britain’s involvement in the Spanish War of Succession in 1711 and pushed forward a peace process that culminated in the Treaty of Utrecht in 1713.

However, 1714 was the see the end of his political influence. This was caused by the issue of succession. Anne’s health had not been good for a number of years and the government with her support had pushed for a Hanovarian succession to her on her death. The Whigs were united in their support for the Elector George of Hanover. The Tories split into those who wanted him and those who did not. Harley bore the brunt of this disunity which was exploited by his main adversity - Viscount Bolingbroke. Unable to cope with such pressure – and never really a party man – Harley took to drinking more and more. He suffered accordingly and on more than one occasion was unintelligible in public. Anne dismissed him on July 27^th 1714 – just five days before she died.

Rather than flee abroad, Harley stayed in England and was impeached. He spent two years in the Tower of London (1715 to 1717) before he was acquitted in July 1717.

Though Harley was allowed to remain a member of the House of Lords, he preferred to spend his time at his Hereford estates where he became a landlord interested in agricultural improvement. He also gained fame as a collector of important books and manuscripts.

Robert Harley, Earl of Oxford, died on May 21st 1724.

The South Sea Bubble

You can read about the first stock speculation and stock market crash and how this phenomenon affected the period here:
http://www.thesouthseabubble.com/

The Treaty of Utrecht (1713)
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/859832/treaties-of-Utrecht 

http://www.heraldica.org/topics/france/utrecht.htm 

Travel Narratives

Swift posits Gulliver's Travels as an authentic travel narrative, which Captain Gulliver, the traveler, has published on the urging of his cousin, Sympson.  Swift has plenty of travel narratives to select as models for his narrative frame--and they continued well into the 18th century and beyond.  Some of them presented such exotic and incredible stories as "factual" accounts that gullible eighteenth-century readers, who had never ventured as far even as London (a magnet for the bizarre and exotic by this time), might be excused for believing Captain Gulliver's tales...or might they?

Here are some examples of travel narratives from the period that you and others in the class found:

(1) Thomas Gage’s “A New Survey of the West Indies being a Journal of Three Thousand and Three Hundred Miles within the Main Land of America.” The link to the thumbnails is below:

http://eebo.chadwyck.com/search/full_rec?SOURCE=pgthumbs.cfg&ACTION=ByID&ID=12256370&FILE=../session/1349285482_14315&SEARCHSCREEN=CITATIONS&SEARCHCONFIG=var_spell.cfg&DISPLAY=AUTHOR

Hard to read in the original scan, but Google Books has a lot of the pages digitized from a later (copyrighted) version, so it’s more readable. I found this text interesting on many levels – one reason is that there’s a chapter on the Tlaxcallan Indians, so it references the Dryden play (Chapter X “wherein is first drawn the estate and condition of the great Town of Tlaxcallan, where the first Spaniards entered into the Empire of Mexico. Cortes first encounter with the Tlaxcaltecas, their league with him…”, p 60). Another is the obvious hatred by Gage of his Catholic religion and all its practices and what appears to be his increasing disgust with everything Catholic. There’s also a reference to “La Puebla de Los Angeles” twenty leagues from Mexico stating that “by reason of the good and wholesome air it daily increaseth with inhabitants” (p 50 on the Google Books version).  Interesting descriptions of the torturing done in the name of religion by the Catholic church; the descriptions of how the Indians looked and dressed; and descriptions of some of the “Europeanized” traditions of the native populations in their dances and ceremonies.

(2) A collection of voyages and travels, consisting of authentic writers in our own tongue, which have not before been collected in English, or have only been abridged in other Collections. And continued with others of note, that have published histories, Voyages, Travels, Journals or Discoveries in other Nations and Languages, relating to any part of the continent of Asia, Africa, America, Europe, or the Islands thereof, from the earliest Account to the present Time. Digested according to the parts o the world, to which they particularly relate: with historical introductions to each account, where thought necessary, containing either the Lives of their Authors or what else could be discovered and was supposed capable of entertaining and informing the curious Reader. And with great variety of cuts, prospects, Ruins, Maps, and Charts. Compiled from the curious and valuable library of the late Earl of Oxford. Interspersed and illustrated with Notes, Containing. Either a General Account of the Discovery of those Countries, or an Abstract of their Histories, Government, Trade, Religion, &c. collected from Original Papers, Letters, Charters, Letters Patents, Acts of Parliament, &c. not to be met with, and proper to explain many obscure Passages in other Collections of this Kind. ...  London : printed for and sold by Thomas Osborne of Gray's-Inn, MDCCXLV. [1745].

(3) The comical pilgrim; or, travels of a cynick philosopher, thro' the most wicked parts of the world, namely, England, Wales, Scotland, Ireland, and Holland. with His Merry Observations on the English Stage, Gaming-Houses, Poets, Beaux, Women, Courtiers, Politicians, and Plotters. Welsh Clergy, Gentry, and Customs. Scotch Manners, Religion, and Lawyers. Irish Ceremonies in their Marriages, Christenings, and Burials. And Dutch Government, Polity, and Trade. Being a general satyr on the vices and follies of the age. London,  1722. Eighteenth Century Collections Online. Gale. Georgia State Univ. 4 Oct. 2012
<http://find.galegroup.com.ezproxy.gsu.edu/ecco/infomark.do?&source=gale&prodId=ECCO&userGroupName=atla29738&tabID=T001&docId=CW3311416005&type=multipage&contentSet=ECCOArticles&version=1.0&docLevel=FASCIMILE>.

http://find.galegroup.com.ezproxy.gsu.edu/ecco/retrieve.do?sgHitCountType=None&sort=Author&tabID=T001&prodId=ECCO&resultListType=RESULT_LIST&searchId=R3&searchType=BasicSearchForm&currentPosition=34&qrySerId=Locale%28en%2C%2C%29%3AFQE%3D%28SU%2CNone%2C7%29travel+%3AAnd%3ALQE%3D%28BA%2CNone%2C14%29+2NEJ+Or+0LRK+%24&retrieveFormat=MULTIPAGE_DOCUMENT&userGroupName=atla29738&inPS=true&contentSet=ECCOArticles&&docId=CW3311416005&retrieveFormat=MULTIPAGE_DOCUMENT&docLevel=FASCIMILE&workId=CW3311416005&relevancePageBatch=CW111416004&showLOI=Yes&contentSet=&callistoContentSet=ECLL&docPage=article&hilite=y

(4) A Journal, with occasional remarks, made on a trip from Aleppo to Bussora, across the Grand Desart [sic] of Arabia by Henry Abbott.  In his preface he states that he is only going to focus on the most specific details of the journal.  He also apologizes for the inadequacies of the journal, not knowing that it was not intended for publication.  

This journal is similar to Gulliver's Travels in that it describes lands almost unknown to most of Europe.  Comically enough, he claims that he "will therefore endeavor, in as few words as [he] can, to give some outlines of it" (12)  Despite the narrators knowledge that Europeans know nothing of the Arab desert, he wants to keep his remarks short and sweet, a trope that Swift uses as well.

I would suggest reading selections alongside Swift's Travels to see stylistic similarities.

(5)

Mungo Park's Travels in the Interior Districts of Africa

http://find.galegroup.com/ecco/retrieve.do?sgHitCountType=None&scale=0.33&sort=Author&docLevel=FASCIMILE&prodId=ECCO&tabID=T001&searchId=R1&resultListType=RESULT_LIST&searchType=BasicSearchForm&currentPosition=1&qrySerId=Locale%28en%2C%2C%29%3AFQE%3D%28A0%2CNone%2C11%29park%2C+mungo%3AAnd%3ALQE%3D%28BA%2CNone%2C124%292NEF+Or+0LRH+Or+2NEK+Or+0LRL+Or+2NEI+Or+0LRI+Or+2NEJ+Or+0LRK+Or+2NEG+Or+0LRF+Or+2NEH+Or+0LRJ+Or+2NEM+Or+0LRN+Or+2NEL+Or+0LRM%24&retrieveFormat=MULTIPAGE_DOCUMENT&inPS=true&userGroupName=atla29738&docId=CW3307657650&currentPosition=1&workId=1233700900&relevancePageBatch=CW107657648&contentSet=ECCOArticles&callistoContentSet=ECCOArticles&resultListType=RESULT_LIST&reformatPage=N&retrieveFormat=MULTIPAGE_DOCUMENT&scale=0.33&pageIndex=4&orientation=&showLOI=Yes&quickSearchTerm=&stwFuzzy=&doDirectDocNumSearch=false&forRelevantNavigation=true

(6)
M. Adanson, A Voyage to Senegal, the Isle of Goree and the River Gambia.  London, 1759.
This is the narrative that I found re: 18th century that intrigued me. I was most interested in issues of blackness as "other".  This is only a partial representation of this narrative (it is 358 pages) but it details a travel narrative of a Frenchman to Senegal. It is mostly descriptive of the area but highlights Anderson's interaction with blacks as crude,basic yet hospitable. He had no read desire to interact with them apart from as "spectacles" of the natural habitat.

From Brandi for class 10/17:

Chloe Houston "Utopia, Dystopia or Anti-Utopia? Gulliver's Travels and the Utopian Mode of Discourse"

http://ehis.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.gsu.edu/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=3&hid=3&sid=aa037423-6a97-4d09-a442-b0172553be72@sessionmgr13

John B. Radner "The Fall and Decline: Gulliver's Travels and the Failure of Utopia"

http://ehis.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.gsu.edu/eds/detail?vid=6&hid=1&sid=aa037423-6a97-4d09-a442-b0172553be72%40sessionmgr13&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmU%3d#db=wdh&AN=4113110

Selected Essays in English Literature, Peter Lang Publishing
"Horse Sense and Sensibility: Some Issues Concerning Utopian Understanding in Gulliver's Travels"

http://ehis.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.gsu.edu/eds/detail?vid=8&hid=121&sid=aa037423-6a97-4d09-a442-b0172553be72%40sessionmgr13&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmU%3d#db=lfh&AN=19326429

Questions for class discussion:

1) How do we read Swift's Gulliver's Travels now in the twenty-first century? Do we see it more or less as Utopian discourse as technologies have progressed and led us to broader knowledge of other cultures both past and present?

2) Are the Houyhnhnms really the Utopian ideal, especially considering the other examples of moral characters in the text? Are they rendered absurd by Gulliver's obsession with their system of government, who himself in an effort to imitate them, falls into isolation from his family and own English society? Is Swift rendering them as the extreme, a warning to those who follow the ideal to it's absurd conclusion?

3) What do we make of the Houyhnhnms society based solely upon Reason? Is strict Reason followed throughout their culture in everything they do, and if so, then is it truly as idealistic as it is portrayed? How do we handle the justice of their slave-based society? How does their counsel regarding the Yahoos and Gulliver's fate represent decisions based upon reason alone or does it? If the counsel's logic is to be taken as the utopian ideal of reasoning, is it a desirable and/or applicable code of ethics?

Your suggested secondary sources:

Douglas Lane Patey, "Swift's Satire on 'Science and the Structure of Gulliver's Travels," ELH 58.4 (1991): 809-39.

In his essay entitled “Swift’s Satire on ‘Science’ and the Structure of Gulliver’s Travels” Douglas Lane Patey begins by differentiating between the eighteenth century definition of science and our modern version of the word, stating that in Swift’s time, they were just beginning to tease out the discipline of science as a separate arena of studies. In the eighteenth century the sciences were areas of thought which were not based solely on probability or conjecture. A thing was not defined in circular terms by its immediate effects, as with the example of the ancients defining opium being a soporific because taking it makes a person sleepy. Instead people were attempting to better understand the underlying laws of nature that provided said effects (813). Patey argues that Swift dislikes the modern sciences because of their excess in losing sight of “prudence,” given here as the recognition of the limitations of the human mind. Loss of practicality generates the same mistakes as the ancients and fails ultimately to progress forward, as seen through the Laputans where in their pushing of science to the extreme, they lose all sight of prudence to the point that even the applications of their calculations end up being failures. Though the Laputans are given to excel in math and music, their accomplishments upon paper become in application crooked houses and a city rendered almost entirely destitute. Patey demonstrates through Swift’s descriptions that the ideal methods of science should find a balance between scientific production and investigation; they should attempt to improve upon older methods yet accept the limitation that not all arenas of human life are to be known to the same level of exactness.

Next Patey moves on to demonstrate Swift’s use of the travel narrative, tracing how the experience of travel is similar to that of Lockean self-discovery and understanding as well as Swift’s method of “abstract[ing] away accidentals until we have a view of the essential” (826). Comparisons between bodies of vastly different sizes and shapes reveal the true essence of difference to lie in the capability of reasoning faculties not on the emphasis of certain pretensions like “beauty, power, or wisdom,” which are often mistakenly based solely on physical aspects (825). The essay moves back to analyze the necessity of the arts in life to provide what cannot be directly known by human knowledge. Patey argues Swift’s goal is to push culture as the ultimate defining point of the human race, giving culture to be a perpetual striving towards perfection, a need to progress, to explore, and to refuse to accept easy definitions which minimize and degrade human kind. He demonstrates that even through “quarrels with God” at the present state of affairs, people become prideful and stagnant, not using their reasoning faculties to find ways out of difficulties. Finally Patey discusses Swift’s sliding political and scientific views during the course of his lifetime which, like his critique, strive for progress through adaptation and balance.

Patey draws out well Swift’s ideals of combining progress with art, showing how Swift’s greatest critique lies with those who take any one line of thought to an extreme, become too sedate or prideful in their views, and fail to continue to find forward motion. Ultimately the goal is not to define anything as “either/or” or “certainty versus prudence” but finding a middle ground between poles or applying each line of thought/action where it is best applicable. The greatest difficulties lie in defining any of the viewpoints in the text as tried and true; as often as Swift asserts one argument, he then undercuts it. As much as the science of the Laputans is downgraded, there is no critique against their deductions of the movement of the heavenly bodies beyond their losing sight of day to day experiences and challenges. Swift does not seem here to give fault with their explorations of the celestial bodies but with their lack of balance of these discoveries with “closer to home” concerns. The argument that all must be a balance, however, gives no clear method of progress forward because it leaves a great deal of uncertainty which must be explored. There is little way of knowing which arena in life must have more certainty applied to it and which ought to be left more to prudence until it is tested with both. The challenge is to recognize before it is too late, before degeneration begins to occur, when to cease and desist applying too much scientific application or too much prudence to the result of excess pride. 

 

Analysis of Fereshteh Zangenehpour’s Article “The Essential Displacement: Lordship and Sovereignty in Aphra Behn’s Oroonoko, or The Royal Slave”[1]

Fereshteh Zangenehpour’s deconstruction article “The Essential Displacement: Lordship and Sovereignty in Aphra Behn’s Oroonoko, or The Royal Slave” successfully argues that “Oroonoko’s paradoxical position as the Royal Slave […] [results in] the erasure and silencing of dialectical continuity [in the novella]” (87).  This essay attempts to answer the questions of Oroonoko’s identity through the heuristic of Derrida and Hegel, specifically regarding the identity of the Self and Other.  Indeed, Zangenehpour determines Oroonoko to not only represent the role of a slave, but also that of a leader.  The dichotomy between lordship and bondage is prevalent throughout the work, but, as Zangenehpour argues, Oroonoko experiences a “failure to recognize and acknowledge his contradictory situation,” resulting in a confused, broken Oroonoko (87).

Zangenehpour resourcefully consults two distinct types of evidence throughout the article.  First, she heavily relies upon the writings of Hegel, Bataille, and Derrida in determining the relationship between lordship and sovereignty—two concepts that are generally at odds for Oroonoko’s character—providing a solid theoretical foundation for the close reading to follow.  Using the logical arguments already set forth by Derrida and Bataille, Zangenehpour determines that Oroonoko is equally consumed with sovereignty and lordship (88), but she argues that lordship is the more dominant of the two forces due to Oroonoko’s role in the slave revolt.  Oroonoko, she argues using these authors’ work on dialectical dilemmas, is unlikely to experience much of a slave’s mentality because of his upbringing in his homeland (88).  The “repressed consciousness [of a slave] has no essential reality” in Oroonoko’s psyche, but when it intersects with his dominant consciousness of a prince, “both consider each other as common objects [and] they have to defend or protect themselves” (90). 

Zangenehpour continues her analysis of Hegels’s master-slave dialectic, claiming that Oroonoko’s situation is particularly precarious because of “the colour of his skin” (90).  In Surinam, Oroonoko’s skin color automatically determines his role as a slave within the society.  After providing extensive amount of background information, Zangenehpour arrives at what I find to be his most clear thesis statement: she “[studies] Oroonoko’s inner perplexity and [witnesses] how he negotiates between his two diverse selves throughout his life in Surinam” (90-91).

As I mention above, Zangenehpour consults two types of evidence.  In addition to the theoretical work already discussed, she relies on a plentitude of primary source evidence.  In handling the novella itself, Zangenehpour quite helpfully breaks the novella into three distinct sections: Oroonoko’s status as a prince in Africa, his reduction to a slave in Surinam, and his organization of the slave revolt (91). Zangenehpour’s evidence clearly suggests that Oroonoko is of nobility and should be viewed as a Self by the reader, rather than an Other, because the narrator is a noble, white woman (92).  Oroonoko is reduced, however, to the low rank of a slave once he is captured by a white slave trader through deceit (93).  This slavery, Zangenehpour argues, “gives rise to a complex dilemma” (93).  Oroonoko has a desire to be recognized as an equal by the whites because of his noble character, regardless of his skin color. Zangenehpour cleverly suggests that Oroonoko, now removed from his lordship, continues to act as a lord with regard to his slave revolts, which upsets the political system (93-94).  In the third part, the novella becomes even more complicated.  Oroonoko, who is at this point simulating lordship, now fears for Imoinda’s child.  This child, Zangenehpour notes, will be born into slavery and forced to relive the trials that Oroonoko experiences.  Oroonoko’s master-self takes over once more in the revolt, and he returns to his former glory as a prince, at least until the revolt is quelled (94-95).  Upon Oroonoko’s capture, he is bound and fastened before execution, reducing him to the rank of a slave once more (97).

With regard to organization, the essay is as successful with structure as it is with evidence.  Zangenehpour provides a clear introduction to the topic in the first sentence, including all of the words that she continues to reference in the first sentence.  After a clear statement of her thesis, provides grounding in deconstruction by summarizing the key arguments of the texts she consults throughout the work.  This is very effective, I find, because she remains focused on the textual evidence after explaining the theory, providing clarity.  The textual evidence rightly follows the chronology of the novella.  She then ends with a strong conclusion, leaving no unanswered questions. 

At one point seemingly as an aside, Zangenehpour returns to Hegel and Derrida to determine Oroonoko’s Self-conscious motivation for organizing the revolt, meaning that (95).  I do not find the paragraph relevant since Zangenehpour argues earlier that Oroonoko’s actions are only to save his child from being born into the same situation.  Further analysis seems to contradict his existing argument.  Aside from this small qualm, I find that Zangenehpour’s article is entirely effective and successful in providing a deconstructive analysis of Oroonoko.  Perhaps he could have including some consultation of other scholars’ work on similar subjects, though.  There is a definite lacking of any explanation for how this work enters into the critical conversation of deconstruction in Oroonoko.

---

[1] Zangenehpour, Fereshteh. “The Essential Displacement: Lordship and Sovereignty in Aphra Behn’s Oroonoko, or The Royal Slave.” Nordic Journal English Studies 9.1 (2010): 86-99. MLAIB. Web. 15 Sept. 2012.