Assignment paper no 102

 

 Name :- Riddhi H. Rathod 

Roll No.: 19

Enrollment No.: 4069206420220025

Paper no: 102

Paper name: Literature of the Neo-classical period

Sem: 1 (Batch 2022- 2024)

Submitted to: Smt S.B. Gardi Department

A Tale of Tub and Religion 

“A Tale of a Tub” was the first major work written by Jonathan Swift, composed between 1694 and 1697 and published in 1704. It is arguably his most difficult satire, and perhaps his most masterly. The “Tale” is a prose parody which is divided into sections of «digression» and a «tale» of three brothers, each representing one of the main branches of western Christianity.

The structure and purpose of “A Tale of a Tub”

“A Tale of a Tub” begins with a train of prefatory matter, including a list of fictitious “Treatises wrote by the Same Author”, two letters of dedication, a letter from “The Bookseller to the Reader”, a Preface and an Introduction. In 1710 Swift added an “Apology” to defend his work. The tale proper – a story about three brothers and the coats their father wills them – begins in section II, but not for long. The remainder of the text alternates between sections devoted to this story and digressions with such titles as “A Digression in the Modern Kind” and “A Digression in Praise of Digressions”. Finally, the tale disappears altogether and the text ends with a conclusion in which the narrator resolves to “write upon nothing”. (A. From now on I will use this online text as a reference for the quotations.)

The structure of “A Tale of a Tub” – its copious prefatory material and its digressiveness – seems determined to keep the reader from the heart of the matter. In fact, the “Tale”’s narrator claims in the Preface that the purpose of his work is not so much to say something as to divert the attention of those who would attack religion and government: just as “sea-men have a custom when they meet a whale, to fling him out an empty tub, by way of amusement, to divert him from laying violent hands upon the ship”. The monstrous whale threatening the ship of state, according to the narrator, is Thomas Hobbes’ influential “Leviathan” and the imitations it inspired; the empty tub is the “Tale” itself. The reader should not trust the purpose implied in this metaphor, however, as the tub is hardly empty, and the “Tale”’s narrator proves no great champion of his stated cause.

Despite its complications, the “Apology” to the “Tale” offers a more reliable account of the purpose and structure of the work. Swift explains that he intended to satirize “the numerous and gross corruptions in religion and learning”.  He wants to expose “abuses in religion” in the tale of the three brothers, and “those in learning he chose to introduce by way of digressions”.

Swift’s satire in abuses in learning in the “Tale” has different targets, all of which he considered dangerous to the nation. He criticizes everything modern, including modern writing and modern philosophy. Swift parodies modern book titles and provides a list of “Treatises wrote by the Same Author” of the “Tale”, including “A General History of Ears” and “A Panegyrick upon the World”, titles that reflect the banal and reductive thinking Swift ridicules throughout the “Tale”.

Besides, the author has another target for his criticism – the power of print. Swift wrote “A Tale of a Tub” after the lapse of the Licensing Act, at a time when printed materials began to proliferate as never before and literacy rates were rising among all social classes. The appearance of words in print somehow gave them authority, and this worried Swift. He feared the subversive effects of bad books on undiscerning readers. Like other Ancients, he believed that bad ideas and bad writing weaken a civilization. So, “A Tale of a Tub” is a mock-book that seeks to awaken its readers’ discernment.  In its extravagant textual apparatus, its lengthy prefatory matter, and ample footnotes, Swift’s “Tale” demands our questioning its authority and recognizing its dangers. The readers have to be careful while reading modern writings because they can contain hazardous ideas. Not everything that is written has a firm authority and thus, not every book is good for us to read.

Satire on religion :-

In the “Tale” proper – the story of the three brothers – Swift’s reader must identify the terms of the religious allegory. A father leaves his three sons coats (the Christian faith) and directions for the proper care of their coats in a will (the scriptures). If the sons abide by the will, their coats will last and fit them properly through all changes. The will “consisted wholly of certain plain, easy directions about the management and wearing of their coats”.  Swift presents the scriptures as a “plain text” and affirms that it does not require any interpretation. Its meaning and authority lie on its surface, it is self-evident, plain. The author mocks the readers like the three brothers who disregarded the authority of their father’s will and tried to interpret it.

Swift suggests that the interpretation of sacred texts is typically motivated by something other than the desire to know God’s will. In order to pursue their pleasures and to follow the latest fashions, the brothers twist and wring unintended meanings from the will. Brother Peter (Catholicism) distinguishes himself early as a shrewd interpreter. The father’s will, we are told, “was very precise”. The sons were “not to add to, or diminish from their coats, one thread, without a positive command in the will”. Through perverse interpretations of the will itself, nonetheless, Peter justifies adding forbidden adornments. The ultimate motive for scriptural interpretation becomes evident as Peter uses it for power, first over his brothers and then over the world. Peter’s attempts to force the text show a pride that knows no bounds. By his final appearance in the “Tale” he is calling himself “God Almighty and sometimes Monarch of the Universe”. However, the father’s plain text finally proves an obstacle to Peter’s desire, so Peter eventually stops reading altogether and locks up the will in a strong-box. This represents the early history of the Catholic church when it was denying the laity access to the scriptures. The locked box also represents the practical fate of any text subject to a corrupt reader’s will. Captive to a self-serving interpretation, the written word finally has no say.

In the allegory’s depiction of the Protestant Reformation, Peter’s two brothers – Martin and Jack – eventually break from him and retrieve the will. Although they resolve to “reduce all their future measures to the strictest obedience prescribed therein”, corrupt interpretation soon returns. The figure of Jack represents Protestant dissenters and various fundamentalist sects. Jack can bring to mind not only John Calvin but also the representatives of Puritans and Presbyterians, Methodists and Quakers, Baptists and Independents. Though Jack’s style of interpreting differs greatly, he abuses the will as shamelessly as Peter. While Peter hunts for arcane signs and allegorizes, Jack literalizes in ways that prove equally distorting. If the will expressly forbids additions to their coats, then Jack will tear and rend frantically until all additions are removed, heedless of the damage he does to the fabric of the coat itself. Jack’s behaviour here reflects the actions of violent Protestant sects; not only does his tearing recall their vandalizing of Catholic churches and monuments during the Reformation, it also suggests the damage Swift believes their divisiveness has done to the Christian faith itself. In his interpretative passion, Jack rips his coat to shreds. Again, Swift stresses the motives for interpretation, in this case, malice towards the Catholic Church: “the memory of Lord Peter’s injuries, produced a degree of hatred and spight which had a much greater share of inciting [Jack] than any regards after his father’s commands”. Like Peter, Jack is deluded. Unconscious of his own base motives, he believes his fanaticism to be righteousness. Passion and pride propel both brothers’ styles of interpretation, and Jack finally resembles Peter.

The third brother, Martin, probably named after Martin Luther but generally thought to represent the Anglican Church, offers an altogether different style of reading. Martin resolves to keep some additions to his coat when their removal would damage the fabric of the coat itself, “which he thought the best method for serving the true intent and meaning of his father’s will”. Swift stresses the plainness of the will, but even Martin must interpret beyond its simple terms. As much as the author would like to suggest otherwise, interpretation seems inevitable. Of course, most texts, including the actual scriptures, are not as plain and simple as the father’s will. Texts are typically read in complex circumstances like Martin’s, in which he must determine how to obey laws that have already been violated.

But does Martin present the best way of interpreting the father’s will? Some readers have doubted whether Martin offers an attractive alternative to Peter and Jack. On one hand, Swift stresses Martin’s radical differences from his brothers. When Jack tells Martin “Tear, pull, rent, flay off all, that we may appear as unlike the rogue Peter, as it is possible”, Martin responds calmly “Peter was still their brother…It was true, the testament of their good father was very exact in what related to the wearing of their coats; yet was it no less penal and strict in prescribing agreement, and friendship and affection between them”. Love for his brothers and respect for his father seems to enable Martin to know his father’s will. However, many readers have wondered at Swift’s flat portrayal of Martin, whom the narrator describes as “extremely flegmatic and sedate”. The narrator claims that Martin’s “gravely” delivered “Lecture on morality”, from which Jack flies, would contribute to the “reader’s repose, both of body and mind”. Many find Martin ponderous and dull, not to mention largely absent. Some readers even think that in Martin we see a more subtle form of pride. But Swift’s treatment of Martin might actually incriminate the narrator, Jack and the sort of readers who find morality boring.

In the end, it remains unclear whether Swift finally offers a satisfying model for honest reading. With two clearly bad models in Peter and Jack, and one ambiguous in Martin, the author does not seem to offer a genuinely clear guide for avoiding the corruption of interpretation or for knowing the father’s will. Similarly, in the digressions in the “Tale” that satirize abuses in learning, Swift is more apt to present corruptions and raise questions than to offer clear, positive models for knowing. 

Thus, we can see that “A Tale of a Tub” is mainly a satire on the current problems among different branches of Christian religion. Though Swift uses all his art to criticize this situation and make it look ridiculous, he, however, does not directly states his own opinion and does not offer any solution either. Probably, he does not intend to come up with any solution, because there cannot be any. It is not possible to say that some religion is better than the other, that is why Swift wisely does not support any of the parties.