Brian
A Modest
Proposal is everything that a satirical story should be. It includes sarcasm and irony as Jonathan
Swift takes us through a roller coaster ride to show us how the poor are
treated miserably.
The narrator begins by leading us down a
path. He seems sincere and thinks it is
a pity how everywhere you walk in the streets of Dublin you see the poor
begging people for hand outs. He is
seeking a solution to help the commonwealth.
He appears to be a logical, educated person who
makes it clear that he has been studying this subject for years. He then tells us that he has a solution to
help the babies whose parents cannot afford them. We think his idea will be charitable and will
actually help the poor as well as the nation.
The narrator then does something that I think
set the tone for the rest of the story.
He referred to a baby just born as being dropped from its dam. Animals are dropped from dams, not
humans. Therefore poor people in this
story are nothing more than animals.
We are told how the children are a burden and
how instead of requiring food and clothing the rest of their lives, they will
contribute to the feeding and clothing of many people. Any intelligent person would assume he
intends to put them in factories or farms to work and not be on the streets
begging for food. We are also told that
his plan will prevent voluntary abortions and women murdering their bastard
babies.
The narrator
shows the reader he is serious by producing calculations that appear to be well
thought-out and then showing us, through examples, That these children have no
future.
Up to this point the narrator appears to be
intelligent. He is from the upper class
and has low morals. He thinks lowly
about the poor but has made several logical assumptions and observations. He
has us all wondering what his proposal will be.
He then tells us
that a young healthy child at a year old is a most delicious, nourishing and
wholesome food. The first thing that
went through everyone's mind is that this man is crazy. Cannibalism?
That is disgusting. Yet he
continues on as if he said something completely rational and sane. According to his proposal, twenty thousand
children may be reserved for breeding which is more than they allow to sheep,
black cattle and swine. He is comparing
humans to animals again. The rest, being
one hundred thousand being sold to persons of quality and fortune. Persons of quality? What kind of person eats a baby? He is even going as far as to tell us to
advise the mothers to let their babies suck plentifully in the last month, so
as to render them plump and fat for a good table. That is revolting. He is just plain mad. That is the effect I think Jonathan Swift
wanted to grab our attention and make us listen to him. That is when the satire starts to unfold and
that is when he drops the bomb on us.
"I grant this food will be somewhat dear, and therefore very proper
for landlords, who as they have already devoured most of the parents, seem to
have the best title to the children."
He is telling us we already have cannibalism. The landlords are cruel and inhuman. The landlords have already taken so much from
the families, why not give them the babies as well?
It takes approximately two shillings annually
to nurse a child, rags included. The
children did not even wear clothes because they could not afford them. They wore whatever was cheap and whatever
they could find and no gentleman would repine to give ten shillings for the
carcass of a good fat child. There is
more satire here. What kind of gentleman
eats a child? The narrator goes on to
tell us that he will be a good landlord and grow popular among his
tenants. There is some more satire
presented to us. The people will like
the landlords for two reasons. One being
that they will be getting rid of their babies which they cannot afford. I do not think the people will rejoice at
having their babies eaten by their landlords.
The narrator spoke to a worthy person, a true
lover of his country, who offered a refinement upon his scheme. He told him that the want of venison might
well be supplied by the bodies of young lads and maidens between the ages of
twelve and fourteen. To hunt humans as
if they are game only because they are poor.
His friend is not patriotic. His
friend is a cannibal. I think irony is
being used to describe him. Satire is being used when he tells us that some
scrupulous people might be apt to censure such a practice, although unjustly,
as a little bordering on cruelty. It is
more likely that almost everyone would censure such a practice.
The advantages to his proposal are obvious and
many as well of the highest importance.
All his proposals are satirical, some even revolting. The poorer tenants will have something
valuable of their own, which by law may be liable to distress, and help to pay
the landlord's rent. Once again he
refers to the land lords. Not only will
they sell their babies to them but if they do not pay their rent, the landlords
can take their babies. The babies are
being used as a commodity and not even considered human. Another advantage according to him is the
taverns will profit from a new dish that will be introduced to gentlemen. People who eat babies have refinement and
taste? He even refers to them as
gentlemen. People who are reading this
proposal realize at this point that only the rich will benefit from such a ludicrous
concept.
The narrator then lists several other satirical
advantages. It would increase the care
of mothers towards their children? We
should see an honest emulation among women?
The mothers are made out to be beasts.
No mother would sell her child to be eaten at any price and I doubt very
much that it will encourage marriage.
People will not marry and produce babies to earn ten shillings.
"Men would become as fond of their wives,
during the time of their pregnancy, as they are now of their mares in foal,
their cows in calf, or sows when they are ready to farrow, nor offer to beat or
kick them." Once again the poor are
being compared to animals and I doubt men will take better care of their wives if they will sell the baby eventually.
There were some calculations made that caught
my attention. These calculations are
somewhat disgusting as well as satirical.
Families would be consumers of infant flesh at merry meetings,
particularly weddings and christenings.
We are told that families will celebrate the introduction of a family
and a christening of a child by eating some poor person's baby.
The narrator then lists several ideas that
could be used as a remedy. Possibly to
try to make his proposal seem sane. His
ten proposals are not erratic. They are
modest but far to radical for the rich people.
They would never allow these ideas to be put into use.
The babies are
then being referred to as useless mouths and backs to clothe and their parents
as creatures in human figures. The
narrator does not even consider them to be human. According to him, they look like people but
do not live like people. The narrator even
goes as far as saying the parents should be asked if they would have preferred
to have been sold for food at a year old.
Who in their right mind would want to be eaten? Yet he tells us that the parents would have
been in favor of it.
The narrator commented on how he has no other
motive than the public good for his country but his country does not include
everybody. Only the rich and those who
can take care and support themselves.
I think that Jonathan Swift tried to show how
terrible the poor were treated. Everyone
was to busy to help them. He compared
them to animals and referred to them as creatures. I think he did this to show where their
society was heading. The rich simply did
not care about what happened to the poor and they were literally eating them
out of house and home. Jonathan Swift
wrote this satirical essay so the people would at least acknowledge that they
had a problem. It is to be hoped that
enough people read his essay and tried to make a difference.
--------------------------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment