The politics of Gulliver's travels. by E.P.
Lock. London: Oxford University Press, 1980.
pp ix+156.
著者（英） Mitsuo Tanaka
journal or
publication title
Doshisha literature
number 30
page range 105‑115
year 1982‑03‑20
権利（英） English Literary Society of Doshisha University
URL http://doi.org/10.14988/pa.2017.0000016517
105
THE POLITICS OF GULLlVER'S TRAVELS. By E. P. Lock. London:
Oxford University Press, 1980. Pp. ix
+
156.This book, though it may seem rather small, is perhaps the largest of such writings as deal almost exclusively with one facet of Swift's best-known satire. We are blessed with some excellent studies by Eddy, Case, Carnochan, and others! concerning Gulliver's Travels, but those works treat the Travels as a whole. Until the appearance of this book, we were, as far as I know, never provided with a book which, in its entirety, covered the political contents of the work. Recently, A Tale of a Tub has come to be reconsidered from a variety of angles, and we have been agreeably startled at the results of the studies of the Tale by Harth, Clark, and Smith.2 However, when we reflect on Gul- liver's Travels as the most fundamental and comprehensive of Swift's achievements, it would seem even more interesting and significant to treat the Travels more exhaustively in special areas than has been done heretofore. Thus, Lock's attempt has a due claim to attention, and even to success, because of its intensive focus of the political as- pects of the Travels.
From the Introduction, we can find the gist of what Lock has in- tended in the book. In the midst of the flood of very specific inter- pretations of the Travels, he challengingly questions whether such in- terpretations are relevant. His answer is definite and quite confident:
The political purpose of Gulliver's Travels was not the refight- ing of the lost battles of Anne's reign. It was not even primarily intended as a critique of the Whig government then in power.
Still less was it concerned with the particular problems of contem- porary Ireland. Those and similar purposes were best served by the same kind of political pamphlet as he had been writing since
1701. Swift had a much wider aim in Gulliver's Travels: to at- tack not particular Whigs or Whig policies, not even Whiggism, but the perennial political disease of which Whiggery was only a contemporary manifestation.3
He states, further, that Swift never wanted his proposals for reforma- tion to be "too closely identified" with the "party platform." Swift's concern, according to Lock, was far from any desire to contribute to restoring the Tories to their former political leadership. Nor did Swift think of attacking the contemporary 'iVhig leaders with specific details.
Lock's conclusion seems to have been already communicated in this remarkable introductory comment, and we can recognize, from the out- set, the sort of challenge which he is about to wage against traditional interpretations of Gulliver's Travels.
In the first of his five chapters Lock defines Gulliver's Travels as the product of "the politics of pessimism." He deliberately avoids mention of the comic factors of the work because of their irrelevance to the theme he has in mind. His method may here be justified be- cause the Travels, though it surely contains comical elements too con- spicuous to overlook, cannot be regarded as essentially comical, at least in those parts that directly refer to politics. Swift's political pessimism is attributable to his belief, through both reading and actual experience, that men of "unbending principle and integrity" cannot help ending as political failures. Both Brutus and Thomas More were brought to ruin on the score of their "cluster of virtues." The author argues that Swift shared Sir William Temple's contempt for" mere" success in life and his dislike for the merely factual. In dealing with Temple's impact on Swift, however, Lock never touches upon Temple's distaste for satire in general which is stated by Herbert Davis.4 Temple's influence on Swift cannot be overstressed, but whether that influence
proved decisive has to be determined after we take into account not only the fact that Swift edited Temple's writings after his death, but Swift's lifelong work with satire which, according to Davis, his master and patron never valued much. However, Lock's observation that Swift had a hearty sympathy for the politically quasi-disappointed may be at once accurate and profoundly meaningful. Swift's admiration was directed neither to conquerors nor to the establishers of what Arnold Toynbee calls" universal states," but to legislators of integrity and to the introducers of civilization. Lock is careful enough to state, in justifying his assertions, that it was not Caesar but Brutus whom Swift worshipped as a hero. Swift's politics of pessimism can be understood as derived from the unshaken belief that political victims are far more respectable than those who rise in the world of politics.
In his second chapter, "The Lessons of History," Lock develops his already stated conclusion by means of historical inquiries. He says:
Swift and most of his contemporaries believed in the general uniformity of human nature. Forms might vary; manners, customs, and institutions were influenced by such factors as climate and would naturally change over periods of time and vary in different places. But the essentials, the basic passions and desires of man- kind, were constant. The same virtues and vices would be found in different proportions perhaps, in modern France and England as III ancient Greece and Rome.o
This may be the basic belief that, according to Lock, makes up Swift's
"cyclic view of history." Lock illustrates by citing some persons and events of importance throughout the history of Europe. He shows that Swift was mainly interested in the political history of Europe, not pri- marily in contemporary Ireland nor in the Whig-versus-Tory political strife. As he states, Gulliver's Travels is a literary work in which
Swift's advocacy of the landed interest against the moneyed, his" con- vinced" enmity toward absolute political sovereignty, his esteem for a balanced government, and his bitter hatred against "political ingrati- tude" are comprehensively combined.
Many interesting statements can be found in this chapter, the most intriguing of which, perhaps, is that King Charles XII of Sweden can be thought to be the model of the King of Brobdingnag. This inter- pretation is almost the only exception in the whole book, for throughout Lock denies the validity of any "specific" interpretations of the Trav- els. Particular identifications of Swift's characters with historical and contemporary personages are always rejected, but the identification of the Brobdingnagian king with Charles XII is allowed a specially fa- voured validity. The author recurs to the theme of his first chapter by saying that the untimely end of that historical king is symbolic of Swift's belief that people of integrity are inevitable failures in the world of politics. This exception-making cannot be wholly exempt from the charge that it reflects Lock's opportunism. As the author asserts, Swift's ideal king is embodied in the person of that giant-king, but I wonder why he does not try to make his point consistent by saying, not that the giant-king was modelled on King Charles XII of Sweden, but that Charles is a manifestation of a model king well suited to the satirist's ideal. If Gulliver's Travels is a satire against "types" of states and statesmen created through Swift's" cyclic view" of European history, why ought the philosopher-king to be interpreted as an alle- gorical characterization of Charles XII? Here, his argument may be unconvincing.
The third chapter is devoted to textual problems, but the author's purpose is not merely to throw light on the two mutually variant texts of Guilliver's Travels. The emphasis is laid on textual concerns be-
109 cause the differences existing between Motte's and Faulkner's editions may, according to the author, serve to clarify some aspect of Swift's intention in writing Gulliver's Travels. Unlike Sir Harold Williams, Lock is convinced of the "integrity of Motte's edition as a faithful representation of what Swift wrote." 6 Lock warns that to take literally what Swift makes Captain Guilliver complain of as Motte's tampering with the text may involve some danger. He declares that the complaint is none other than one more Swiftian joke. He advises the reader not to think seriously about Gulliver's grievance as a manifestation of Swift's disbelief in the trustworthiness of Motte. Lock confidently states that Motte's "tampering" with the text is "improbable." However, we cannot but be at a loss about how to justify Lock's hypothetical obser- vation that even Charles Ford, one of the most intimate friends to Swift, participated in that" Swiftian joke." Though in close touch with Swift and his writings, Ford seems to have been hardly enough of a literary man to involve himself in the joke. The problem about Motte's "tam- pering" needs to be solved by more definitive evidence, whether in- ternal or not. However, Lock draws attention to a possible change in Swift's intention which might have taken place between the appearance of Motte's edition and that of Faulkner's. He states that Swift found the first edition too topically satirical and tried to retouch such parts as would prevent the whole work from becoming purely "general" in character. Here, too, Lock stresses Swift's inclination toward general satire. To read the work in too particular a manner, he warns, is quite misleading. Such particulars are reduced by Lock to mere" accidental"
entries which Swift himself never thought much of. Here, however, I have to propose a number of essential questions which are generally concerned with satire. Is it possible for the satirist to satirize the gen- eral without any "particulars" in mind or in view? ''''hat can a
"general satiric comment" signify unless we bear some specific exam- ples, whether historical or contemporary, in mind? In sum, can gen- eral satire" exist by itself alone? Those questions haunted me in the whole process of reading Lock's study because they were inextricably related to what he proposes throughout his book.
In the fourth chapter, " Allegories and Allusions," the author's focus on the theme at issue grows more and more intensive. He draws a subtle distinction between the two terms: allegory and allusion. He says that Gulliver's Travels is "not wholly allegorical," but it contains some "allusions" to contemporary politics. According to the author, allusion is a "hit-and-run method" that aims at creating a "paradigm,"
while allegory is intended for portraying. Regretting the overflow of allegorical interpretations of Gulliver's Travels begun by Firth and ad- vanced by Case, he is highly critical of the "vain pursuit of chimeri- cal allegory." 7 Lock's point is that what matters most is not so much portraits as paradigms as far as Gulliver's Travels is concerned. How- ever, it is worthwhile to note that Lock, though with reluctance, admits that Gulliver's Travels is "allegory" in the widest sense of the word.
We readers cannot be exempt from falling into confusion between
" allusi ve" and "allegorical." The extent of the validity of the alle- gorical interpretations of the work ought to be examined more strictly and with a closer analytic study. This chapter is of most crucial im- portance in Lock's book, and we regret the author's failure to draw a more delicate line between" allegories" and" allusions." In the most vital part of his book, he is too involved in his attacks against "alle- gorical interpretations" to see the value and necessity of such careful discrimination.
Lock's antagnoism against any attempt to detect correspondences between historical events or persons and the characters or happenings
111
III Gulliver's Travels is precise, piercing, and apparently irresistible.
To connect the Drapier's campaign against William Wood's patent and the rebellion of Lindalino is totally groundless; to relate Luggnagg to France is absurd; the Struldbruggs' supposed satiric link with the French Academy is merely" absurdly reductive." In order to strengthen his animadversion against allegorical interpretations, Lock goes so far as to devise a tentative allegorizing himself. He says that, assuming Gulliver is England, "a plausible allegory of the events of the War of the Spanish Succession can be constructed." 8 In that tentative allegori- cal interpretation, France is Blefuscu; Lilliput is the Empire; Gulliver, England, functions as the arbiter of Europe. In this passage, Lock's attack is directed not so much to those interpretations themselves as to the very ease with which new interpretations as such can be heaped up endlessly. He seems to be positive that what makes Swift's mean- ing obscure, if his satire seems to fall into such a state, is the "unnec- essary and misleading" efforts of those allegory-mongers. Naturally, therefore, Lock is assured that Swift himself is wholly free of respon- sibility for that obscurity. It is not obscurity but the aptness of anal- ogy by which any satirist tries to induce his reader into the act of identifying. Lock's point is that many "clues" are needed in order that "personal," "particular," and "topical" kinds of satire might be successfully comprehended by the reader. To put it another way, the reader is not entirely justified in identifying the characters of satiric works with historical or contemporary persons unless adequate clues are provided. With this point in mind, Lock almost ridicules Case's attempt to identify three Lilliputian high officials. Lock's impulse to ridicule can fully be understood by his ironical comment that the iden- tity of General Limtoc may be involved in "a military secret." 9 He interprets Skyresh Bolgolam as a common courtier type; he even chal-
lenges a deep-rooted hypothesis, an almost generally accepted truth in literary history, that Flimnap is Sir Robert Walpole, on the ground that we have not a perfectly precise reason to evoke Sir Robert as the ac- tual person Swift had in mind when he depicted Flimnap. Ehrenpreis's identification of the King of Brobdingnag with Sir William Temple is .also rejected as ill-grounded.
In this chapter, Lock is eager to refute "overingenious" allegori- cal interpretations one after another, and we find ourselves almost tired of his repetitious assertion that Swift had hardly any particular satiric targets. Clearly, it would be next to impossible to prove with absolute -exactness such identifications as have been proposed by many critics -of Swift. However, to discard those interpretations as mere guesswork is perilous. In this chapter, the author is more destructive than con- structive. I cannot help considering that to deny satire any specific targets would be to make obscure how satire is really directed. It is 'Surely a proper insight of the author that Swift represented his "gen- -eral" ideas and ideals in politics through Gulliver's Travels; we have become aware of the danger accompanying the oversubtle ingenuity of 'some earlier critics of Swift. But Lock appears to be too desperate in his refutations. Take his own mocking allegorical interpretation for
·instance. It is too playful and carelessly irresponsible of him to iden- tify Gulliver with England. Swift does not have a character represent
·a kingdom except in The Story of the Injured Lady, where, however, his characters consistently represent kingdoms. In spite of his state- ment that Gulliver may represent England, he says that the Emperor of Lilliput may represent the Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire.
Swift's usual satiric method is left out of account in such a deliberate- ly whimsical interpretation. Lock's carelessness lies in his making his point seemingly stronger at the expense of the consistency of Swift's
satiric method. Trivial though it may be, he misquotes" orientate" as
"orient" when he cited Ehrenpreis.1o That may be his minor careless- ness.
His last chapter, "The Politics of Common Sense," is far more constructive than the rest. He specifies Swift's" ideas and ideals" in politics. His esteem for morality and integrity in preference to subtle tactics in politics; his land-oriented political disposition clearly revealed in the second voyage of Gulliver; his hatred against the "breach of trust" hinted at in the first voyage; his belief that the fewer laws, the better-all these are reaffirmed elaborately through a number of exam- ples from Gulliver's Travels. The aim of the chapter is explicitly shown by its title; Swift's ideal is to return to "common sense" and
"simplicity." However, superfluously enough, Lock resumes his denial of the specific interpretations of the Travels.
In the whole perspective of Swift criticism, Lock stands in a posi- tion quite contrary to that of Edward W. Rosenheim whom he inadvert- ently fails to mention. This omission is hardly forgivable. Rosenheim's theory is very resolute and solid, if not always correct. In his study, Rosenhiem states that satiric works need to have specific, historically authentic targets.l l According to him, satiric targets ought to be par- ticularly discernible. He totally denies any generalized interpretation of Swift's major and minor satires. Unlike Lock, he laments the over- flow of "generalizations." He emphasizes the need to carry out" THE SEARCH FOR [sic] a precise object of the Satirist's attack." 12 The difference between Lock and Rosenheim is the difference between the maniac of generalization and the particulars-haunted critic. The two viewpoints are implacably at variance with each other. Since Lock's study has appeared seventeen years after Rosenheim's book was written, Lock should cross-examine his adversary in order to place his own
study in the stream of Swift criticism. However, Lock keeps on as- serting his points as if Rosenheim, the strongest and the most arti- culate of his opponents now alive, never existed. We are repeatedly made to understand fully Lock's enmity toward the specific, victim- pursuing interpretations of Gulliver's Travels. His next task, we have to hope, will be to deal squarely with the most recent of his rival- critics. (We are not sure whether Lock has seen Rosenheim's work because this book does not contain a bibliography.) In spite of those faults and failures, however, the book is well organized, well focused, and worthy of close examination. "The poliitics of pessimism," which Swift keenly felt in the realities of the history of European politics, and
"the politics of common sense," which he held as his ideal, are dex- terously blended and balanced. That makes up sufficently for the repetitiousness and overelaborateness with which Lock assails his pre- decessors.
Notes
1. William A. Eddy, Gulliver's Travels, A Critical Study (Princeton: Prince- ton University Press, 1923). Arthur E. Case, Four Essays on Gulliver's Travels (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1945). W. B. Carnochan, Lemuel Gulliver's Mirror for Man (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1968).
2. Philip Harth, Swift and Anglican Rationalism: The Religious Background of A Tale of a Tub (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1961).
John R. Clark, Form and Frenzy in Swift's A Tale of a Tub (Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 1970). Frederik N. Smith, Language and Reality in Swift's A Tale of a Tub (Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1979).
3. E. P. Lock, The Politics of Gulliver's Travels (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1970), p. 2.
4. Herbert Davis, The Satires of Jonathan Swift (New York: Macmillan, 1947).
5. Lock, op. cit. p. 33.
6. Ibid., p. 68.
7. Ibid., p. 106.
8. Ibid., p. 109.
9. Ibid., p. 114.
10. Ibid., p. 121.
11. Edward W. Rosenheim, Swift and the Satirist's Art (Chicago: The Uni- versity of Chicago Press, 1963).
12. Rosenheim, op. cit., p. 37.
MITSUO TANAKA