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.
|