Saturday, October 31, 2026

Flashback, October 1726: Swift’s “Gulliver’s Travels’ Cuts English Politics—Even Humanity—Down to Size

A London bookseller may have published Gulliver’s Travels 300 years ago this month without knowing the identity of its author, but before long English intellectuals were buzzing that it was the Anglo-Irish satirist Jonathan Swift.

Growing up, I read a shortened version of this tale focusing on the six-inch citizens of Lilliput that was marketed as children’s literature. It wasn’t until college, when I read all four “books” in the Travels, that I realized it was far more:

*a satire of the political scene of Swift’s time;

*a parody of the “true accounts” of the travel genre so popular in the Age of Discovery;

*an early example of science fiction;

*a searing denunciation of what Mark Twain would later call “the damned human race”; and even

*an exercise in irony at the expense of narrator Lemuel Gulliver so sustained that it effectively became a forerunner of modern fiction in undercutting any notion of objective truth.

The ruse that Swift concocted in sending his manuscript to Benjamin Motte for publication paralleled the game he shortly played with readers’ expectations. 

The manuscript arrived with a cover letter from a stranger named Richard Sympson stating that he had just edited a travel narrative by his cousin Gulliver, a surgeon; that Sympson could vouch for Gulliver’s truthfulness; that Motte had three days to decide whether wished to publish it, based on the initial “Satyrical” first two books; and if the answer was yet, Motte would pay two hundred pounds upfront the subsequent two parts of Gulliver’s narrative.

Where to start with all of this?

*The names “Gulliver” and “Sympson” were pseudonyms;

*A friend, fellow satirist John Gay, wrote by hand the cover letter to disguise Swift’s authorship;

*Yet another friend (still unknown) wrote the manuscript, again with no clue that Swift was involved;

*Though the first two books might have been a bit satirical, the last two represented a political hot potato—but, per the agreement with “Sympson,” Motte would still have to pay for it.

Once readers started leafing through the book, they had to make sense of yet another letter, this time purporting to come from Gulliver to Sympson, in which the putative explorer scolds the publisher for releasing this “very loose and uncorrect account of my travels.” At this point, any reader would be bound to ask what on earth he was reading.

Starting with the first book, set in Lilliput, Swift upset readers’ notion of security by playing with notions of size and proportion. Gulliver wakes to find that six-inch people have strapped him down to the beach. This also begins his instinct for unconsciously assuming the mental habits of the strange peoples he visits—in this case, failing to see the ludicrousness of the Lilliputians’ charge that he has engaged in sexual intercourse with the treasurer’s wife in the land.

Like his title character, Swift was, to use the modern cliché, a “fish out of water”—the Anglo-Irish “Dean” of St. Patrick’s Cathedral, Dublin, an outsider who came to view English politics and government with the disdain he had once felt for the Irish Catholic majority in Ireland.

In Book 2, Gulliver is so self-absorbed, so much the “ugly Englishman” that he is shocked to hear the king of Brobdingnag call his countrymen “the most pernicious race of little odious vermin that nature ever suffered to crawl upon the surface of the earth.”

Even in his narrative, Gulliver’s failure to make the most elementary mental connections indicates a terrible inability to understand the world—a failure that will finally prove disastrous to him.

In the final book, Swift makes horses capable of reason. Gulliver himself manifests his incredible lack of perception through his ignorance of the significance of words. Immediately after saying of the first “yahoo” (i.e., a filthy, vicious human-like creature ruled over by intelligent horses) that he never saw such an awful animal, he writes that the beast “roared” at him. Later, however, he himself roars when he’s squeezed and when the female yahoo tries to mount him.

His roaring means that Gulliver himself is a yahoo, but he glosses over this painful secret quickly, unaware that he has given a clue to his dread secret already.

Gulliver may be betrayed as a yahoo, but as the narrow of his own adventure he betrays his own mindlessness to the reader. Perhaps Swift is suggesting that, insofar as human beings shy away from and lie about the dirty little secrets confronting them, they run the risk of joining Gulliver in a circle of mindlessness.

No comments: