Lilliputian Political Liberty

Swift has sometimes been seen as a champion of liberty. However, in his essay “Politics vs Literature” –that can be found and read via the next link: http://orwell.ru/library/reviews/swift/english/e_swift -- George Orwell took a different view. “Swift”, he wrote, “was one of those people who are driven into a sort of perverse ‘Toryism’ by the follies of the progressive party of the moment”. On a positive note one might say that Swift was “a Tory Anarchist, despising authority while disbelieving in liberty”. On a negative note one could claim that he was a reactionary, not only opposed to sham science, but to all science, and even to intellectual curiosity itself. Swift is also portrayed by Orwell as an authoritarian and a dispiser of the human body. “In a political and moral sense”, writes Orwell, “I am against him, so far as I understand him”. Yet he then goes on to declare that Swift “is one of the writers I admire with least reserve”.

In Orwell’s article, it is stated that there is a significant amount of evidence to imply that the ‘inverted hypocrisy’ in Swift’s life may also be seen in some parts of his art and that orthodox Christian beliefs were at the core of his most important works. It is important to take a look at Gulliver's role in Swift’s work as well as the use of Lilliput and the Lilliputians as a way of expressing his ideas.

It stands to reason that as Gulliver, an Englishman, is similar to the Lilliputians, the place he is from, England, is comparable to Lilliput. England is portrayed as a tiny country in order to introduce a new perspective on its politics and partisanship in Lilliput.

The differences between the high heels and the low heels is one example of this new take on English politics. In Lilliput, there is a split between the men who wear high-heeled shoes and those that wear low-heeled shoes. For example, the Trameckans support the constitution and the emperor of Lilliput yet it is the Slameckans that are in power. The Emperor puts the low heels into office regardless of the capibility and qualifications of the high heels. Interestingly the Emperor's son wears one high and one low heel and his political position is therefore unclear.

This can be understood as a jab at the Tories and the Whigs, prominent political parties in early eighteenth century England. The Tories were political conservatives who supported a consolidation of royal authority and the restriction of the power of English Parliament (which is similar to the American Senate). The Whigs were relatively liberal and wanted more power to go to the Parliament.

Following England's 1689 Glorious Revolution in which Parliament introduced a new king upon the throne, the Whigs were really doing well. And they began to see more success when George I came to the throne after the death of Queen Anne. George was pro-Whig, and his Parliament was dominated by the Whigs. We can therefore conclude that the Whigs are like the low heels, the only men who have any power in the Lilliputian government.

This division and the shallowness of its very nature –high heeled versus low heeled shoes– emphasises that the Emperor is not thinking about actual ability. Gulliver states that the Lilliputians  choose fools for office rather than wise men in order to avoid corruption. The logic for this is that it is better for people to make mistakes out of stupidity than for guys to make mistakes due to bribery. The fact is however that, either way, mistakes are to be made.

Works Cited

Lawlis, Merritt. “Swift’s Uses of Narrative: The Third Chapter of the Voyage to Lilliput”. The Journal of English and Germanic Philology. 72.1 New York: University of Illinois Press, Jan., 1973. (pp. 1-16).

Orwell, George. “Politics vs. Literature: An Examination of Gulliver’s Travels”. The Collected Essays, Journalism and Letters of George Orwell Volume 4: In Front of Your Nose (1945-1950). Ed. Sonia Orwell and Ian Angus. (Penguin)

How much literature is within their 'globes'?

For many, January is the start of an intense guilt-induced period of cutbacks, when these people stress about their post-Christmas budget and waistline. "The Golden Globes" is very much the opening ceremony.

Back for a third year, Gervais gave an equally funny but slightly less scathing performance as host, but no doubt we can expect some to criticise for not being controversial enough, and for others to be predictably offended because he said the word penis on prime time NBC.

The Language of John Gay's 'The Beggar's Opera'

There is no doubt that John Gay makes an effort to differentiate at least two conversational registers in his The Beggar’s Opera. On the one hand, the language used by Mr Peachum, a parvenu or new rich, who has made a fortune with the dirty business of buying and selling stolen goods. After having been probably a thief, and originally a member of the lower strata of society; his new situation and position as a wholesaler, actually a thief-catcher and underworld fence who sells stolen goods, has given him and his family access to and facilitated his contacts with the middle and upper classes. This is the reason why the kind of sub-standard English he probably used when he was simply one more thief has given way to a far more refined conversational register. Thus, he no longer uses the forms of the singular second person of the personal reference pronouns ‘thou’, ‘thee’, ‘thy’ and ‘thine’ and their corresponding verbal forms as the thieves do; but the forms of the paradigm ‘you’, ‘ye’, ‘your’, which in the eighteenth century were prevailing over and displacing the ‘thou’(you, S), ‘thee’(you, O), ‘thy’(your) and ‘thine’(yours) forms in standard and cultivated English.

On the other hand, as has just been said, the thieves often employ these ‘thou’, ‘thee’ and ‘thy’ forms, which were becoming slightly obsolete and whose use was reduced to social and regional dialects. The contrast is very obvious, while Polly and Peachum speak like that, this is, with a standard English and vestiges of cultivated English of the time, the thieves and prostitutes of the play do not.

            This contrast adds dynamism and life to the dialogues; and, obviously, the kind of counterpoint that it generates is an aesthetic value. And this is true in spite of the expressive limitation of the convention used by prose writers and playwrights in the rendering or representation of dialect in literature. Indeed, before the nineteenth century –and, therefore, the triumph of realism– , the insertion of a couple of dialectal traits was considered sufficient, by both authors and audiences or reading publics, for the characterisation of dialectal uses. Even in Shakespeare (like in Henry V) plays we find this poor condition.

The Literary Influence on Pop Stars and Celebrities

Enjoy "The Graham Norton Show" which can contain an amazing use of literary references, puns, linguitic jokes and stuff like that.