¡Descarga have you eaten yet y más Apuntes en PDF de Filología Inglesa solo en Docsity!
Rice University
Have You Eaten Yet? The Reader in A Modest Proposal
Author(s): Robert Phiddian
Source:Studies in English Literature, 1500-1900, Vol. 36, No. 3, Restoration and Eighteenth
Century (Summer, 1996), pp. 603-
Published by: Rice University
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/.
Accessed: 04/02/2015 13:
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
Rice University is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Studies in English Literature, 1500-1900.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 140.203.12.206 on Wed, 4 Feb 2015 13:57:24 PM
SEL36 (^) (1996) ISSN (^) 0039-
Have You Eaten Yet?
The Reader in A Modest Proposal
ROBERT PHIDDIAN
I HAVE been assured (^) by a (^) very knowing American of (^) my Acquaintance in^ London; that^ a^ young healthy Child, well nursed, is, at^ a^ Year^ old, a^ most^ delicious, (^) nourishing, and wholesome (^) Food; whether (^) Stewed, Roasted, Baked, or Boiled; and, I^ make^ no^ doubt, that^ it^ will^ equally serve^ in^ a^ Fricasie,or Ragoust.
We would (^) prefer to believe that this is not (^) funny, but we laugh.1 What^ is^ the^ quality of^ this^ laughter? What^ does^ it^ tell^ us about Jonathan Swift's Modest (^) Proposal? And what does it tell us about ourselves?
I
It is (^) not, in (^) any straightforward sense, laughter of release. Swift himself wrote that "the chief end I (^) propose to (^) my self in all (^) my labors is to vex the world rather then divert it,"2 and this rhetorical (^) principle is nowhere more active than in A (^) Modest
Proposal. The^ essay is^ grotesque without^ being carnivalesque, and the (^) feeling it induces in readers is one of unease rather than of pleasure or^ release.^ It^ unsettles^ the^ reader; here, for^ example, with the irresistible excess of a list that (^) grinds on, long after we have (^) accepted that it should never have been started. The relentless enumeration of (^) culinary methods fascinates and (in
Robert Phiddian is a lecturer in (^) English at Flinders (^) University of South Australia. He is the author of (^) Swift's Parody (1995) and several articles on eighteenth-century matters.
This content downloaded from 140.203.12.206 on Wed, 4 Feb 2015 13:57:24 PM
ROBERT PHIDDIAN
under cover of quotation in the distant and scholarly language
of Latin. Scipio was not skirting the issue when he insisted that
Carthage had^ to^ be^ destroyed if^ Rome^ was^ to^ survive.^ The^ refer-
ence fits the persona's case well, because Rome did demolish
Carthage and^ sow^ its^ fields^ with^ salt, and^ then^ Rome^ prospered
as no other nation. By destroying the Dissenters, the analogy goes,
England will^ both^ preserve itself^ from^ immediate^ destruction^ at
the hands of its most implacable enemies and guarantee itself a
glorious destiny. However,^ this^ allegorical connection^ is^ offered
only in^ code^ for^ the^ possessor of^ schoolboy Latin, thus^ flattering
the reader, escaping critical analysis (once one spots an analogy,
one seldom scrutinizes it very carefully to see how well it fits), and
avoiding an^ explicitstatement^ of^ bloody intent.^ Here^ and^ through-
out TheShortestWay,Defoe's narrator uses every trick of rhetoric
in order to naturalize brutality.
Swift'sProposer, on the other hand, discusses recipes for stewed
baby. If^ Swift'splan for^ the^ readers^ was^ first^ to^ trick^ us^ into^ tempo-
raryassent^ to^ the^ proposal, and^ then^ to^ follow^ this^ with^ an^ instruc-
tive catharsis when we recognize our error and revise our view of
the political situation, it^ would seem that Defoe was a^ more^ skill-
ful parodic ironist than he.^ The^ ModestProposalis^ simply too
aggressively alienating to be successful as a hoax, and^ I^ would
suggest that we should not^ try to read^ it^ that^ way. The^ text^ does
not make a serious attempt to lull us into a false sense of security.
Rather, it^ attacks^ us; everywhere it^ makes^ us^ vulnerable.^ We^ are
exposed to^ the^ vicissitudes^ of^ moral^ choice, stretched^ between^ the
polar claims^ to^ authority made, on^ the^ one^ hand, by the^ delin-
quent and lunatic Proposer, and, on the other, by an angry but
fugitive Swift. What I want to do in this essay is to look carefully
at how we readers are positioned in the text and in relation to
these polar authorities. My argument is that, while we are exposed
to desperate choices and ironies, the textual dislocation is not
absolute. We can say nothing final about the pamphlet, but we are
not entirely cast adrift on a stormy sea of warring discourses or
pure textuality.Swiftwrote to vex us, indeed, but this vexation has
a meaning and a mood. As readers, we are drawn into the insan-
ity of the situation (both historical and rhetorical), and^ egged on
to a^ grim sort of^ laughter (or, at^ least, a^ humorless^ anxiety), the
implications of^ which^ are^ not^ easily resolved.
II
From very early on-perhaps even^ from^ the^ title-the^ text
presents us^ with^ a^ problem of^ decipherment. Certainly, by the
This content downloaded from 140.203.12.206 on Wed, 4 Feb 2015 13:57:24 PM
A MODEST PROPOSAL
time we have reached the discussion of (^) cooking instructions quoted in^ the^ epigraph to^ this^ article, we^ are^ not^ inclined^ to accept the^ pamphlet as^ the^ serious^ expression of^ a^ sane^ mind. There is little (^) point in (^) attempting to mark a (^) precise point in the text where we (^) begin to realize that the author's (^) meaning diverges from^ the^ narrator's.^ This^ will^ vary from^ reader^ to reader.4 Furthermore, the search for such a (^) point makes a couple of^ assumptions about^ the^ reading process that^ will^ not bear (^) inspection. First, it assumes (^) fictionally that (^) interpretation goes on^ in^ an^ eternal^ present of^ the^ first^ reading, that^ we^ some- how (^) manage (or ought to (^) manage) to (^) repeat the (^) original fall from innocence to (^) experience on (^) every occasion we read (^) the text. Second, it assumes that, in this first (^) reading, we have no prior knowledge of^ the^ text's^ actual^ author^ and^ his^ character.^ Let us (^) review these (^) propositions in (^) turn. In her (^) illuminating reading of the Modest (^) Proposal, Patricia Meyer Spacks aims^ "to^ recapture the^ initial^ response" and^ to fend off the "contamination" of second and third (^) readings.5 As she (^) presents it, this (^) assumption is a (^) hypothesis which enables a certain kind of (^) reading. As a (^) hypothesis it is (^) perfectly valid, but it should not be allowed to harden into a dogma, for it figures forth a sort of reading that does not in fact happen very often, if at all. It assumes that only the ur-reading of a text is valid, and that interpretation should confine itself to the attempt to repli- cate this ideal and fleeting experience. The fallacy of this kinder- garten phenomenology has been effectively exposed by Frederick Crews in his devastating characterization of Stanley Fish's affective stylistics:
Though Fish's theory was clever to a fault, the reader it invoked was a dunce-a Charley Brown who, having had the (^) syntactic football yanked away a hundred times, would keep right (^) on charging (^) it with perfect innocence, never learning to suspend judgment until he arrived at the poet's verb.
Even on the first reading, we are likely to suspend (^) judgment about the Proposal's final meaning. A lot of analysis tends (^) to ignore this very obvious point. Moreover, the actual reader of the essay is likely to be a re-reader, trying to work out why it is such a disconcerting piece (why, for (^) example, does one find it funny?) and trying to resolve what Swift might have meant by it. And I say Swift rather than "the author" advisedly. Swift clung tenaciously to the fiction of anonymity throughout his career,
This content downloaded from 140.203.12.206 on Wed, 4 Feb 2015 13:57:24 PM
A MODEST PR OP O SAL
of the narrator, in a covert manner. We recognize that there is
a gap between the narrator's meaning and the text's, and that
a moral-political argument is being carried out by means of
parody. However,^ this^ recognition is^ not^ a^ solution;^ it^ is^ merely
the beginning of our problems.
III
As David Nokes has pointed out, "the key to the Proposalis the
voice of the proposer."12In order to negotiate the ironies of the
piece, the^ reader^ must^ learn^ to^ distinguish between^ Swift's^ voice
and the Proposer's. Unfortunately, this is not as easy as the
opposing monisms^ of^ persona scholarship and^ biography would
have us believe. The battle between these positions is an old one,
and does not need a long rehearsal from me.13 On the one
hand, it^ is^ argued that^ the^ text^ operates by remote^ control, on
the other that we hear the unmediated voice of Swift.What these
approaches have^ in^ common^ is^ that^ they center^ the^ text^ securely
outside the reader, either in the dramatically coherent charac-
ter of the eighteenth-century economist or in the biographical
Swift. In the practice of actually reading the text, however,
neither center will hold. By the same token, neither center is
dispensable. Keeping^ the^ concepts^ of^ Swift^ and^ Proposer^ apart
is a complex task, because the margins are not stable, but we
need both voices if we are going to get anywhere with this text.
Let us set up the poles of Swift'sand the Proposer's voices as they
operate in reasonably clear examples. The text is most securely
in the hands of the Proposer when he^ lists the six^ signal advan-
tages that his plan offers to^ the^ public. Of^ these, I^ will^ instance
only the second: "SECONDLY,The^ poorer Tenants^ will^ have
something valuable of their own, which, by Law, may be^ made
liable to Distress, and help to^ pay their^ Landlord's^ Rent; their
Corn and Cattle being already seized, and^ Money a^ Thing
unknowne" (12:114-5). From^ within^ the^ narrow^ confines^ of
economic discourse, nothing is^ more^ obvious^ than^ that^ anything
which has a money value should be "liable to Distress" in the
event of bankruptcy. That is the way the free market works. As
the poor are permanently bankrupt, any benefit they might
glean from the market in babies' flesh will not (indeed, should
not) remain with them. Rents^ must^ be^ paid. The^ money will
"trickle up" (to invert a^ modern^ economic^ metaphor, and
perhaps to^ right it) to^ those^ with^ the^ power to^ demand^ it.
Inevitably, the^ lawyers will^ collect^ their^ margin as^ this^ redistrib-
ution of wealth takes place. "Distress"is precisely the Proposer's
This content downloaded from 140.203.12.206 on Wed, 4 Feb 2015 13:57:24 PM
ROBERT PHIDDIAN
turn of thought and phrase. It is apparently clinical and bureau-
cratically neutral^ (a mere^ technical^ term^ that^ describes^ the^ legal
position precisely), but^ it^ also^ masks^ a^ violence^ in^ the^ system.
The narrator does not "mean" to cause distress. Indeed, he
means to disguise the violence as the operation of impersonal
and immutable forces. But those resonances in the word are
implicit, the^ iron^ fist^ in^ the^ economist's^ (rather moth-eaten)
velvet glove. He needs no more than a veneer of respectable
legality to^ cover^ the^ fact^ that^ the^ powerless are^ being pillaged.
He knows his audience: in the Irish context, those who can
read are among the distrainers. They have already "seized"
(another simultaneously legal and violent term) the "Corn and
Cattle," and^ they have^ a^ similar^ right to the babies. As a good
economist, the Proposer knows his business better than to
appeal to^ anything higher than^ selfish^ greed.
The point is that there is nothing higher than selfish greed
within the terms of economic discourse. An ironic (Swiftian)
reading is^ figured beneath^ the^ surface,^ in^ the^ structure^ of^ the
situation, and^ we^ readers^ are^ expected to^ decipher this.^ We^ are
meant to find the greed appealed to cruel and repellent, and
to learn to reject the terms of economic discourse that regularize
the tyranny. We are meant to see that economies continue to
work this way, such that (in our own day) the World Bank insists
that poor debtor nations should concentrate on growing cash
crops so^ that^ they can^ repay their^ debts, rather^ than^ growing
subsistence crops, so that their people should not starve.
However, Swift^ does^ not^ breach^ the^ parodic decorum^ of
economic language here. He may manipulate that language, but
the "voice"we "hear"is the Proposer's, and the conclusions we
draw work on the silent side of irony. Swift is the architect of this
irony, but not directly its enunciator.
That is not the case toward the end of this sentence: "I
GRANT this Food will be somewhat dear, and therefore very
properfor Landlords;who, as they have already devoured most of
the Parents, seem to have the best Title to the Children"
(12:112). Again we^ have^ the^ distancing effect of legal termi-
nology, and^ again we^ have^ the^ focus^ on^ opportunities for^ the
wealthy rather^ than^ necessities^ of^ the^ poor. However, there^ is
something here^ in^ excess^ of^ the^ requirements of^ parodic imper-
sonation; and^ there^ is^ no^ good reason^ to^ call^ that^ excess^ by any
other name than the voice of Swift. The point of the breach in
decorum is the word "devoured." Its power goes beyond the
needs of the dialect of economic discourse, and it points to a
completely different^ way of^ "hearing" the^ text.^ The^ sudden
This content downloaded from 140.203.12.206 on Wed, 4 Feb 2015 13:57:24 PM
ROBERT PHIDDIAN
Rather, as^ mutually antagonistic patterns of^ absence^ and^ pres- ence, they appear under^ erasure, with^ the^ sense^ of^ voiced^ author- ity flickering back^ and^ forth^ between^ the^ two^ poles. These erasures are neither neutral nor identical. (^) They oper- ate in critical (^) ways that (^) shape our reactions and (^) judgments as readers. To (^) generalize for a (^) moment, the (^) Proposer is erased in a (^) degenerative or deconstructive manner. The (^) apparent author- ity with^ which^ he^ commences^ is^ incrementally erased,^ and^ there are (^) points near the end of the text where it seems (^) meaningless to (^) suggest that he is even a voice (^) being ridiculed; in^ places he disappears almost^ completely. On^ the^ other^ hand,^ the^ voice^ of Swift is (^) emergent, becoming clearer (^) through the erasures. (^) Any suitably suspicious reader^ will^ sense^ Swift^ as^ a^ presence looming behind the text from the (^) beginning (an erased and none-too- amused (^) authority), but^ his actual voice^ emerges only sporadically and (^) unpredictably. We^ can^ hear^ genuinely Swiftian^ excess^ emerg- ing from^ the^ Proposer's judicious restraint^ in^ the^ passage which opened this^ essay: having been^ informed^ by the^ Proposer that babies are^ a^ "wholesome^ Food," it^ is^ really Swift^ who^ labors^ the point by suggesting recipes, "whether^ Stewed,^ Roasted,^ Baked,^ or Boiled'; and, should we somehow have missed the point or managed by some ruse to maintain our complacency, he goes on with "and, I make no doubt, that it will equally serve in a Fricasie, or Ragoust." This Swift is a sort of guerrilla warrior, camouflaged by irony and hiding^ in^ the^ jungles^ of^ the^ Proposer's^ misapprehensions and indirections, only to appear explosively in moments such as these: "THOSE who are more thrifty (as I must confess the Times require) may flay the^ Carcase;^ the^ Skin^ of^ which,^ artificially dressed, will make admirable Glovesfor Ladies and Summer Boots for fine Gentlemen" (12:112). The initial attention to thrift is very much the Proposer's, but the flaying of the carcass and the leather-work are Swiftian. Indeed, the attentive reader^ will^ hear echoes of A Tale of^ a^ Tub's^ flayed^ woman^ and^ the^ Yahoo-skin^ shoes with which Gulliver^ furnishes^ himself^ in^ Houyhnhnmland.^ This pattern of^ savage^ emergence^ is^ common,^ but^ it^ is^ not^ systematic enough to offer^ a^ stable^ hermeneutic^ perspective.^ Swift^ flickers. He never emerges^ completely^ and^ unproblematically^ from^ the erasures to^ constitute^ his^ authority^ unequivocally. This is even the case^ in^ that^ most^ obvious^ example^ of^ Swift's emergence in the Proposal -the list of "Expedients" rejected near the end. In^ this^ passage,^ the^ irony^ is^ a^ function^ of^ simple reversal, and^ the^ "true"^ meaning^ is^ signaled^ by^ the^ extensive^ use of italics, which^ set^ off^ Swift's^ real^ proposals^ from^ the^ Proposer's
This content downloaded from 140.203.12.206 on Wed, 4 Feb 2015 13:57:24 PM
A MODEST PROPOSAL
lunacy in^ a^ clear^ and^ typographic manner.^ Even^ here, however,
the emergence is not quite complete, and the irony is not
entirely evaporated. The^ list^ is^ not^ simply Swift's^ unironic
description of^ a^ ready and^ easy way to^ national^ salvation.^ A
suspicion remains^ that^ these^ proposals might be^ little^ more
than palliatives to a political and social condition that cannot
seriously be^ expected to^ recover.^ You^ could^ argue that^ Swift^ is
protecting himself^ from^ ridicule^ as^ an^ enthusiastic^ projector,
proclaiming his^ nostrum^ for^ the^ public good while^ maintaining
a degree of plausible deniability and not appearing foolishly
hopeful. On^ the^ other^ hand,^ you could^ argue that^ he^ is^ reject-
ing even^ these^ sober^ and^ practical programs (even^ though they
are his own, which he has advocated busily over more than a
decade) and^ descending into^ despair. Even^ where^ he^ is^ being
most straightforward, "Swift"can be made to "say"both these
things.
IV
It is obvious but important to recognize that the Proposal's
decipherment is^ not^ simply a^ matter^ of^ being shocked^ into
action by the Proposer's obscenities and then reversing the
negative in^ front^ of^ the^ so-called^ "Expedients."We^ do^ not^ simply
discover Swift in the italics. The reading process is not just a
matter of moving from one false center in the text to a true one.
The erasures blur the voices we hear to make the margins
disconcertingly negotiable, and the negotiations are not merely
functional or playful. They define the reader's vexed condition,
especially in the pamphlet's final paragraphs: "THEREFOREI
repeat, let no Man talk to me of these and the like Expedients;
till he hath, at least, a Glimpse of Hope, that there will ever be
some hearty and sincere Attempt to put them in Practice"
(12:117). The obvious reading here is to see this as the last
words of Swift, signing off with a snarl after his description of
the expedients which just might work and handing control of
the text (and the world) back to the lunatic projector. Symbol-
ically, he is despairing of the efforts he has made in more than
a decade of pamphleteering on Irish problems, and giving up
the battle to wrest control of public policy, leaving the field to
the fools and the knaves, to the projectors and the apologists.
I agree that this is the gist of the Proposal'sconclusion, but it is
premature to assume that this is the point in the text where Swift
leaves, slamming the door. Through the final three paragraphs
he stages a last, savagely ironic battle between his voice and the
This content downloaded from 140.203.12.206 on Wed, 4 Feb 2015 13:57:24 PM
A MODEST PROPOSAL
follows is a (^) grim exposure of the (^) unspoken and (^) oppressive conditions under which (^) anyone takes (^) up her or his (^) pen to^ write on the condition of Ireland. (^) English mercantilism sets^ a^ perime- ter around what can (^) possibly be (^) proposed, and (^) English politi- cal interests ensure that this line is (^) carefully guarded. The Proposer may align himself^ with^ England's unjust authority^ and edit his (^) thoughts to fit in with the (^) oppression, but^ Swift^ rages magnificently at^ the^ selfish^ limitations^ put upon liberty^ by^ venal rulers. He makes the fact of his (^) subjection very clear,^ and^ his anger at^ the^ devouring nation^ is^ only just contained^ by^ the sarcastic italics which conclude the^ paragraph. The (^) Proposer's voice of reason, and Swift's voice^ of^ dark^ frus- tration, continue:
AFTER (^) all, I am not so (^) violently bent (^) upon my own (^) Opinion, as to (^) reject any Offer (^) proposed by wise (^) Men, which shall^ be found (^) equally innocent, (^) cheap, easy, and effectual. But^ before something of^ that^ Kind^ shall^ be^ advanced,^ in^ Contradiction^ to my Scheme, and^ offering a^ better; I^ desire^ the^ Author,^ or Authors, will^ be^ pleased maturely to^ consider^ two^ Points.^ First, As (^) Things now (^) stand, how (^) they will be able to find Food^ and Raiment, for^ a^ Hundred^ Thousand^ useless^ Mouths^ and^ Backs? And (^) secondly, There (^) being a round Million of Creatures in human (^) Figure, throughout this (^) Kingdom; whose whole Subsis- tence, (^) put into^ a^ common^ Stock, would^ leave^ them^ in^ Debt^ two Millions of Pounds (^) Sterling,adding those, who are Beggars by Profession, to^ the^ Bulk^ of^ Farmers, (^) Cottagers, and^ Labourers, with their Wives and (^) Children, who are^ Beggars in^ Effect; (12:117)
I am loath to (^) stop in the middle of a (^) sentence, but the semi- colon marks an (^) important turning point in the (^) logic of the paragraph. Up to^ this^ point, the^ two^ authors^ (Swift^ and^ the Proposer) continue^ on^ their^ separate ways^ in^ their^ uncomfortable plurality. Indeed,^ in^ this^ section,^ the^ duplicity^ of^ Swift's^ and^ the Proposer's voices^ is^ very neatly dove-tailed.^ Swift^ (bitterly)^ and^ the Proposer (vaingloriously) assert^ their^ willingness to^ withdraw their (^) opinions if a better solution to Ireland's (^) problems can be put forward.^ Moreover,^ both^ are^ rather^ sinister^ in^ their^ rhetori- cal (^) aggression. The tone of Swift's voice is one of (^) repressed anger perched on^ the^ edge^ of^ despair.^ He^ sees^ this^ proposal^ as^ a^ recog- nition of the value (^) actually put on human life^ in^ Ireland-as^ a systematization (or^ perhaps no^ more^ than^ a^ clear^ view)^ of^ what
This content downloaded from 140.203.12.206 on Wed, 4 Feb 2015 13:57:24 PM
ROBERT P H I D DIAN 6
is (^) actually happening. There is (^) something of (^) King Lear's^ savage vision (^) of"unaccommodated man" (^) as no more than "a (^) poor, bare, forked (^) animal"'l6 about the anatomical minimalism of"a Hundred Thousand useless Mouths and Backs" and "a round Million of Creatures in human (^) Figure." In a fertile (^) land, they are reduced to (^) numbers, reduced to animals, (^) merely by the casual (^) stupidity of the colonizers and the (^) landowners. These "Mortals" (^) (as the (^) para- graph goes on^ pointedly to^ describe^ them)^ have^ no^ life^ worth living. Without^ the^ prospect of^ a^ change in^ this^ bestial^ condition, they might as^ well^ be^ consumed^ sooner^ as^ later.^ At^ least^ that^ way the sum of (^) misery would be less. In his (^) rage, Swift is determined to draw our attention to the fact that the (^) present situation is^ intol- erable and that (^) something needs to be done. He taunts us^ with the fact of our careless (^) brutality in (^) letting such a situation continue. And the (^) Proposer taunts the readers too, (^) though not with our (^) inhumanity. It is our (^) weak-minded, soft-hearted stupid- ity that^ he^ preens himself^ against. As^ he^ sees^ it,^ the^ material^ facts of the situation (^) preclude any course of action other than the^ one he has outlined. We (^) might find this (^) hard, but (^) (as politicians never (^) weary of (^) insisting when (^) prescribing misery for others) there is no (^) alternative. From this (^) perspective, the (^) humility of "AFTER all, I am (^) not so (^) violently bent (^) upon my own (^) Opinion, as to (^) reject any Offer (^) proposed by wise (^) Men," is mock (^) humility bordering on sarcasm (^) and (^) arrogance. We will all (^) recognize this (^) aggressive trope. It is followed (^) by grueling mathematical reductionism, which reduces humans to their economic essentials: their (^) basic physical needs and their (^) capital worth. There is none of Swift's militant humanity in^ the^ Proposer's version^ of^ "a^ round^ Million^ of^ Crea- tures in human (^) Figure." As (^) George Wittkowsky explains, this phrase "is^ obviously soaked^ in^ the^ spirit of^ political arithmetic," and, in^ this^ sense, (^) language is^ being used^ as^ a^ buffer^ against^ feel- ing. Thus,^ the^ readers^ are^ crushed^ in^ the^ pseudo-scientific mech- anism of the economist's rhetoric of (^) power, subordinated to his callous sense of vindication. So, for^ their^ very different^ reasons, both^ available^ authors are (^) turning on the readers at this (^) point. As the (^) paragraph continues, the^ text^ turns^ on^ us^ in^ a^ third^ way:
I desire those (^) Politicians, who dislike (^) my Overture, and may perhaps be^ so^ bold^ to^ attempt an^ Answer,^ that^ they^ will^ first^ ask the Parents of these (^) Mortals, Whether (^) they would not, at this Day, think^ it^ a^ great Happiness to^ have^ been^ sold^ for^ Food^ at^ a Year (^) old, in the Manner I (^) prescribe; and (^) thereby have avoided such a (^) perpetual Scene of (^) Misfortunes, as (^) they have since gone
This content downloaded from 140.203.12.206 on Wed, 4 Feb 2015 13:57:24 PM
ROBERT PHIDDIAN 1
society there^ is^ a^ blank,^ covered^ (if^ at^ all)^ by the^ pieties of^ reli-
gion and^ the^ nostrums^ of^ economics.
This moment in the Proposalwhere we are desired not to pontif-
icate in a disembodied way about the poor, but to "firstask the
Parents of these Mortals, Whether they would not, at this Day,
think it a great Happiness to have been sold for Food at a Yearold,
in the Manner I prescribe" brings the glass floor of public dis-
course to our attention. We realize that there are people beneath
it, people beneath^ our^ concerns, "Mortals,""Creaturesin^ human
Figure,"who^ suffer^ in^ waysthat^ we^ can^ scarcely imagine. Suddenly
we recognize the fact of their erasure from public discourse. They
are, occasionally, the objects of discussion, but never discoursing
subjects. To^ give voice^ to^ their^ position is^ to^ breach^ an^ unacknowl-
edged and^ potent decorum, notjust of^ economic^ discourse,^ but^ of
all eighteenth-century public language. To attend to this voice
causes acute discomfort in the ruling-classreader because it throws
our morality and prudential concerns into sharp relief. Even hor-
ror at cannibalism is a luxury which some cannot afford, yet we
continue to worry about rents, religious differences, commerce,
the institution of marriage, and variety on the menus of tavern-
keepers.
I mean "we' in two senses, one historical and the other current.
In the^ historical^ sense^ pertaining^ to^ the^ readership^ of^ 1729,^ Swift
and the^ Proposer^ are very aware that their audience is a coher-
ent group with certain common interests. The Proposalis delib-
erately addressed^ not^ to^ oppressing^ England^ (who^ would^ not
care) or^ to^ all^ the^ Irish^ (most^ of^ whom^ could^ not^ read),^ but^ to
the Anglo-Irish,^ a^ class^ debilitated^ in^ part^ by^ English^ colonialism
and in part by its own fecklessness.19 The members of this class
are being called to their responsibilities and reminded of the guilt
they share for the condition of their country. They are, quite liter-
ally, Dublin merchants, Cork clergymen, Limerick gentry, being
vexed both by a hard look at their own condition and at the condi-
tion of those who depend on them. Just how narrowlythe Proposal
is targeted at the concerns of this group is made clear by this
momentary attention to the voice of the oppressed.
To attempt^ to^ include^ ourselves^ in^ this^ group^ is,^ obviously,^ an
extreme and improbable act of historical imagination, but we are
the readersin another^ sense, which explains much about the
Proposal'sabiding^ power^ to^ discomfort.^ While^ people^ continue
to starve and to live in abject poverty, an analogy exists between
Swift's readers' situation and our own, and, as readers, we
remain on^ the^ guilty^ side^ of^ the^ divide^ between^ oppressors^ and
oppressed. In^ the^ subversive^ light^ cast^ by^ this^ moment,^ it^ is
This content downloaded from 140.203.12.206 on Wed, 4 Feb 2015 13:57:24 PM
A MODEST PROPOSAL
made (^) very clear that there are the eaters and the eaten in this world, and we are (^) among the eaters. The (^) prospect of (^) thinking it "a (^) great Happiness to have been sold for Food at a Year old" continues to (^) accuse us because, as (^) participants in the (^) public sphere, we^ do^ not^ belong to^ the^ group from^ whom^ the^ eaten^ will be chosen. And neither is the (^) eating as theoretical a (^) proposition as we would like to believe. It does not stretch the (^) metaphor very far to (^) suggest that the (^) present system of starvation and (^) grinding poverty (both^ in^ eighteenth-century Ireland^ and^ in^ the twentieth-century world),^ though less^ subtly articulated^ than the Modest (^) Proposals scheme for (^) making the (^) poor "beneficial to the Publick" (^) (12:109), is, in its own (^) clumsy way, morally and (^) physi- cally equivalent to^ it.^ From^ below,^ the^ alternatives^ do^ not^ look very different.^ Indeed,^ one^ comfortable,^ well-fed^ year followed by an^ easeful^ oblivion^ has^ a^ lot^ to^ recommend^ it.^ It^ is^ only from above (^) (from the reader's (^) perspective) that the (^) prospect of (^) eating those we call our fellow mortals is (^) nauseating. But we are (^) eating them (^) anyway.
V
I would (^) argue, then, that at the heart of the (^) Proposals abid- ing power to^ unsettle^ readers^ lies^ Swift's^ positioning of^ the^ read- ers among the eaters. The sudden, defamiliarizing shock when we hear an outside voice confirms us in this associational guilt, and we can never entirely escape this guilt without repudiating the text and our position in it. Obviously, all this had very sharp and particular connotations in^ the historical moment^ of the essay's publication. The^ English were^ eating the^ Irish^ in^ general and the (^) Anglo-Irish were eating the (^) Teagues. Those who could read such a (^) pamphlet almost (^) by definition had sufficient wealth and social (^) power to be (^) implicated in the (^) oppression. The (^) essay insists that (^) they had better learn to call what (^) they are (^) letting happen by its true name. However, the bite on the reader is not just a period piece, a historic reconstruction of distant readers' hypothetical experience. While people continue to starve, and continue to lead brutalized lives, the Modest Proposal remains as a standing accusation to those of us who can read it. The story of (^) our reading is (^) the uneasy story of our (^) implication in (^) injustices which we contribute to and allow to continue. It confronts us with the consequences of our indifference. For Swift has always been there ahead of the reader, not to prepare the way but, rather, to lay mines in it. The last twist of this entrapment comes in the final paragraph: "I PROFESS, in
This content downloaded from 140.203.12.206 on Wed, 4 Feb 2015 13:57:24 PM
A MODEST PROPOSAL
that tends to undermine (^) my own and all reader-oriented (^) positions, (^) stating that "'the reader' is (^) simply the critic's marionette" (^) (p. 127). This is (^) true, but I do not see that a certain (^) degree of (^) puppeteering is avoidable in (^) any act of inter- pretation. Crews^ advocates^ a^ renewed^ faithfulness^ toward^ the^ author, but^ "the author" has a (^) long and (^) guilty history of (^) acting as the critic's (^) marionette, and it seems even more (^) impertinent to make statements on her or his behalf than on "the reader's"- a critic can at least (^) speak with (^) authority as a reader of a text. (^) My other defense (^) against this accusation is that I do not use the term "the reader" in an (^) altogether abstract and (^) universalizing sense. As I will (^) go on to explain, it^ is^ important to^ have^ a^ historical^ sense^ of^ who^ actual^ readers^ of^ the Proposalwere^ and^ are.^ Swift's^ essay was^ and^ continues^ to^ be^ a^ political docu- ment: its (^) reception does not occur in an abstract hermeneutic vacuum. 7Prose,12:xix. 8Quoted in^ Prose,12:xix-xx. gProse,12:xx. 10See Hermann (^) Teerink and (^) Arthur Scouten, A (^) Bibliographyof the (^) Writings of Jonathan (^) Swift, 2d edn.^ (Philadelphia: Univ. of (^) Pennsylvania Press, 1963), #677. Given Swift's (^) long history of (^) anonymous publication, it is (^) inconceivable that he would have (^) approvedof (^) being named, but the fact is that it did (^) happen. llThere is (^) very little recorded (^) response to the (^) Proposalat its first (^) appear- ance in the world. Lord Bathurst alludes to it (^) extensively in a letter to (^) Swift, (^12) February 1729/30, Correspondence,3:371-3, in a (^) bantering tone which suggests that^ he^ realizes^ that^ eating people is^ wrong. He^ does^ not, however, appear to^ have^ picked up the^ political implications of^ the piece. It^ is^ a depress- ing prospect to^ consider^ how^ so^ explosive a^ piece as^ the Proposalshould have exploded in^ almost^ total^ silence. '2David (^) Nokes, Jonathan Swift, A (^) HypocriteReversed:A Critical Biography (Oxford: Oxford^ Univ.^ Press, 1987), p. 348. 13Fora^ clear^ rehearsal^ of^ the^ issues^ and^ a^ convincing demonstration^ that persona versus^ author^ is^ not^ really an^ either/or argument, see^ Fredric V. Bogel, "Irony, Inference, and Critical Uncertainty," Yale Review69, 4 (June 1980): 503-19. l4For a^ reading of^ the^ Proposalin^ terms^ of^ voices^ and^ Bakhtinian^ dialogue, see (^) Lloyd Davis, "Reading Irony: Dialogism in A ModestProposal,"AUMLA 77 (May 1992): 32-55. 15This is the broad thrust of much of Derrida's philosophy of language, especially of Of Grammatology,trans. GayatriChakravortySpivak (Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, 1974). Even Derrida cannot get by alto- gether without^ the^ metaphor of voice. See Dissemination,trans. BarbaraJohn- son (^) (Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1981), p. 332: "But the death of that representative voice, that voice which is already dead, does not amount to some absolute silence that would at last make (^) way for some (^) mythical purity of writ- ing, some finally isolated graphy. Rather, it gives rise to an authorless voice, a phonic tracing that no ideal signified or 'thought' can entirely cover in its sensible stamp without leaving something out." This is still more abstract than the (^) concept of voice I wish to use (^) here, but I (^) quote this to indicate that (^) belief in "some (^) mythical purity of (^) writing, some final isolated (^) graphy" is not a neces- sary consequence of skepticism concerning the sources of written "utter- ances." Texts do generate "phonic tracing[s]" in their readers, and I am following these^ in^ the^ Proposal. '6William (^) Shakespeare, The (^) Tragedyof King Lear, ed. Russell Fraser (^) (New York: Signet-Penguin, 1987), III.iv.109-10. '7George Wittkowskj, "Swift's ModestProposal:The Biography of an Early
This content downloaded from 140.203.12.206 on Wed, 4 Feb 2015 13:57:24 PM
ROBERT PHIDDIAN 621
Georgian Pamphlet," Journal of theHistoryof Ideas4,^4 (January 1943):^ 75-104,
'8See Nokes, (^) Jonathan Swift, A (^) HypocriteReversedfor^ a^ general view^ of^ this. For (^) arguments more (^) closely related to^ the^ ModestProposaland^ its^ context, see Nokes's two articles, "Swift and the^ Beggars," Essays in^ Criticism26, (^3) (July 1976): 218-35, and "The Radical Conservatism of^ Swift's^ Irish^ Pamphlets," BritishJournalfor Eighteenth-CenturyStudies 7 (1984): 169-76; and, for^ a^ read- ing of^ the^ Proposalin^ similar^ terms,^ see^ Claude^ Rawson,^ "A^ Reading of^ A ModestProposal,"in Orderfrom ConfusionSprung:Studiesin^ Eighteenth-CenturyLiter- aturefromSwift to^ Cowper(London:^ Alien and^ Unwin,^ 1985),^ pp. 121-44. '9The nature^ and^ interests^ of^ this^ group have^ recently been^ surveyed in^ S. J. Connolly, Religion,Law,^ and^ Power:TheMakingof ProtestantIreland,1660- (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992). For^ the^ purposes of^ this^ essay, Connolly's book offers a (^) very full and (^) important description of^ the^ ProposaFshistorical target audience.
This content downloaded from 140.203.12.206 on Wed, 4 Feb 2015 13:57:24 PM
