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.
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was briefly superseded by George II's favourite, Spencer Compton, but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 5th 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 8th
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 27th 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
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:
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¤tPosition=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¤tPosition=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¤tPosition=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”
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.
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.
