Introduction
Many scholars agree that Gulliver’s Travels was written as a bitter satire designed to parody the human race, with particular emphasis to England and Europe. However, despite this, the satirical significance of this book has over time diminished with its secondary meaning, as a children’s book emerging as the most common interpretation. The situation calls to question the extents of literary and critical efforts that have been invested in the book by scholars. Because the author’s intended meaning appears to be gradually fading into obscurity. This paper aims to address the above query by examining the satirical undertones that characterise the book and comparing the fictional cultures with the society at which Swift directs his acerbic wit.
The Main Body
Considering the political climate in England at the time he wrote these works, it is likely that Swift intended the book as a polemic act showing his disapproval of the ruling elite. He, however cleverly disguises much of this satire to avoid the wrath of the government, which had convicted several of his contemporaries for treason. One of the instances where this veiled satire is evinced is when he is discussing the nature of fraud with the Lilliputian emperor. The latter believe that fraud is a more heinous crime than theft, and should be suitably punished. Considering at the time denunciation was common in Europe, more so England and France, yet there was no punishment for false accusers, he was likely using the scene to point out this moral irony. Gulliver also describes the Lilliputian emperor as a very intelligent and successful individual, who can be interpreted as an ironic foil for King George. The implication here is that a six-inch man was more of a king than the English Monarch who had neither the qualities nor sense of the tiny ruler.
Nevertheless, he also uses the Lilliputians to satirise the government of England, which appeared to have very convoluted notions of justice and Mercy. After he has run afoul with his host for refusing to enslave their neighbours, the King wants him to be executed while his friend pleads for mercy. Mercy, in this case, involves blinding, and slowly starving him to death, instead of a painful sudden death. Here Swift appears to depict the Lilliputians as little savages with little notion of morality or even right or wrong. However, a comparative introspection shows he may as well have referred to England. In the court of King George 1, there had been a case where the Whig government was in a dilemma on how to punish a Noble, who had tried to make peace with the French. The options for mercy and punishment in the actual case were almost identical to those proposed in the story. Therefore, the fictional description of barbarism by the Lilliputians is visibly emblematic of the true occurrences in the “civilised” Europe.
Another instance of satire is the Lilliputian practice of filling court positions by rope jumping and acrobatic skills instead of merit. The English reader maybe, once more, amused by the ignorance of the tiny people, but in reality, this is a covert reference to their corrupt court. At the time, English court appointments were usually based on the appointee’s abilities to manipulate the king with clever words and political “acrobatics”. Also, a key motif that recurs in this book is excrement, which is viewed by many as an extremely upsetting notion, particularly in Europe where the upper class was very concerned with social propriety. However, by constantly alluding to it, Jonathan forcefully reminds his readers that the human condition is not as perfect as they would want to imagine. The fact that they are disgusted by his graphic description of a natural act is enough evidence that humanity is more disgusting than humans would care to admit. In the scenes where he urinates to put out a fire or describes a scientist intent on turning excrement back to food, he is covertly demonstrating the filth that characterises the human condition. Such descriptions are an attack on the upper classes in Europe, who consider themselves beyond commoners, but he brusquely reminds them that they are all human. He equally pokes fun at the church and the war between England and France using the allegory of Little and Big “Endians”. He demonstrates how war had been going on for years, although the dispute had been sparked off by something as insignificant as, which is the right side to crack a boiled egg.
Conclusion
Ultimately, although some of the satirical instances are rather overt, the book stimulates the critical reader to continually seek out hidden meaning and implications that could apply in retrospective or modern society. However, only a few scholars engage in literary criticism of its social, political implications, a sharp contrast with George Orwell’s Animal Farm, which is rarely viewed as a children’s story. Given the potential Gulliver’s travels holds as a historical and contemporary social-political satire, more effort must be put into critical and contextual analysis of the text.