Tony Clavelli
Pissing on the Church of England:
Swift’s Reflexive Satire in A Tale of a Tub
1. IntroductionIn a famous scene of Jonathan Swift’s Gulliver’s Travels, the Lilliputians’ cathedral catches on fire. Gulliver, seeing their distress, urinates on the church to put the fire out (Swift 63). Although he was just trying to solve their problem, the Lilliputians are greatly offended by Gulliver’s efforts. In Swift’s A Tale of a Tub, an uncanny parallel to this scene can be found, where in an attempt to expose the abuses of religion, he similarly defaces the Church of England.
Discovering this parallel, however, is a difficult task. In an account of the works of Jonathan Swift, Samuel Johnson noticed that A Tale of a Tub “exhibits a vehemence and rapidity mind”: so complex and unlike anything else Swift had written (Zimmerman 113). Many critics share Johnson’s sentiments. Warren Montag describes the text to be “as dense as the world it depicts” (Montag 101). Critic Frances Deutsch Louis adds that “there have been almost as many readings of the Tale as there have been readers” (Louis 45). These multiple readings arise mostly because of the complexity of the satirical voice Swift chose to narrate his story. Because religion is often a sensitive subject, and Swift was himself a clergyman, A Tale of a Tub becomes a difficult puzzle to solve.
A Tale of a Tub is generally accepted to be a satire, as explained in Tale’s “Apology,” designed to expose “the gross corruptions in Religion and Learning” (Swift 2). The satire on religion is told through an allegory about a father who leaves each of his three sons a coat and a will to explain how to take care of their coats. Each son comes to represent a different sect of Christianity, and Swift’s clever writing clearly provides a biting satire on Catholics and Puritans. In the Tale’s “Apology,” its speaker insists that the satire “celebrates the Church of England as the most perfect of all others in discipline and doctrine” (2).
More importantly, however, the “Apology” notes “that there generally runs an irony through the thread of this book” (Swift 4). Ironically the satire fails to truly live up to its intentions outlined in the “Apology.” Although the Tale successfully exposes the flaws in Catholics and Puritans, its narrator manages to simultaneously reveal similar flaws in Swift’s own Anglican religion. Furthermore, Swift’s role in the Church of England leads to the question as to whether or not he intentionally draws attention to these flaws. Since he is a member of the clergy, any indication of blasphemy was potentially very dangerous.
The allegory in A Tale of a Tub deals explicitly with the interpretation of texts where the three brothers interpret the will of their father (Zimmerman 39). Similarly, an interpretation of the text of Swift’s A Tale of a Tub shows that Swift not only intend to shed light on the flaws of other sects of Christianity, but to expose the corruption in his own Anglican religion. In order to accomplish this he created a complicated narrator to conceal his awareness of his actions.
2. The Hack
The complex narrator of A Tale of a Tub requires attention in order to decipher Swift’s intentions. According to critic Everett Zimmerman, Swift believed that “satire is not a privileged form, and its author is not exempted from explicit scrutiny” (Zimmerman 28). A reader therefore must look to the speaker in order to fully understand how the satire works.
The speaker is, as critic Ronald Paulson referred to him (and other critics followed suit), a hack. The Hack is a response to the flooding of modern writers at the time Swift wrote this late in the seventeenth century. The Hack makes no effort to conceal that he is this sort of undesirable writer. Swift’s narrator admits he is only writing to make money (Swift 88). He also admits that not all of what was written is actually good (103). Paulson summarizes that the Hack narrator is just that: a hack (Paulson 169). In addition, the Hack narrates the story in a jumbled manner, frequently interrupting the narrative for “Digressions” which have little to do with the story but instead explore an entirely different theme about learning. The hack is unable to stay focused, and is willing to write inconsistently. He uses whatever he feels like to make a point (31).
Interestingly, however, one does not easily separate this Hack from Swift. Louis, although noting that he believes (at least on some levels) that Swift is the narrator himself, describes trying to solve this puzzle of the narrator as “a witty exposé of confusion” (Louis 46). He questions why the narrator, who is depicted as a hack, manages to sound so much like Swift (48). Critic Philip Pinkus offers an answer to this with a question of his own. He suggests that if Swift were only satirizing religion, why “confuse matters by making the Grub Street Hack the narrator?” The levels of satire, according to Pinkus, “are almost infinite” (Pinkus 27). The mere fact that he uses the hack implies that the satire is not a simply about the corruptions of religion as the “Apology” claims.
Zimmerman says that the “text demands that we question the relationship of the narrator to the author,” even if that is a difficult task to undertake (Zimmerman 64). Although there is clearly a separation between the Hack and Swift, it is not an unreasonable assumption that the two are intrinsically tied to each other. Humorously, one connection is that both the Hack and Swift do not want their names on the text. Swift originally published the book anonymously, and the Hack suggests to the bookseller that “when a customer comes for one of these and desires in confidence to know the author,” to “tell him very privately as a friend, naming whichever of the wits shall happen to be that week in the vogue” (Swift 102). Since both Swift and the Hack are functioning the same way, they are directly linked. In addition, the allegory of the brothers provides a good example for how a reader can make another link. When interpreting the will, they can only be concerned with what the author means, not what kind of author the text of the will implies (Zimmerman 63). Connecting this allegory to the study of the author of the Tale, it is clear that even if Swift prefers not to be named, he is still conveying a message which will be read and interpreted. The reactions to this message, which satirizes the Anglicans in addition to the Catholics and Puritans (which will be discussed in a later section), demonstrate that other readers were also able to connect Swift to the Hack despite the clever attempts to not only conceal the satire, but to conceal his identity.
3. The Satire on the Surface
In order to see Swift’s concealed satire on his own religion, the obvious satire must first be examined. What is apparent upon reading, and which critic Phillip Harth emphasizes, is that in the Tale the father plays the role of Christ, the will acts as the Bible, and the coat represents religion (Harth 14). As the three sons each interpret their father’s (Christ’s) will (Bible), they alter their coats (their religion) in different ways (creating different sects of Christianity). The Hack explains that their interpretations are not always true to the text of the will. When fashion trends suggest their coats should have shoulder knots, Peter, who represents Catholicism, notices that at least the letters which make up the word “shoulder” are somewhere in the text, even if the “k” is missing from the word “knot.” Peter even goes as far as to justify the missing “k” citing that it is a rather new letter which would not have been taken into consideration at the time the will was written (Swift 35). The Hack is here suggesting that Catholics alter their interpretation of the Bible to suit their needs. Peter convinces his two brothers to further alter their coats with other trimmings, eventually blatantly going against the will (41-42). This demonstrates the power that Catholics amassed, with Peter appropriately taking a role of the pope. Peter even pushes people into confessing their sins and charges money for forgiveness (54).
The two other brothers eventually decide that Peter is wrong to interpret the will this way and split from Peter (Swift 64). One of the brothers, Jack (representing Puritans) violently strips his coat of all of the trimmings they had put on, which tears the coat to pieces (67). Martin, the third brother whose story is almost entirely untold in the Tale, starts to rip apart his coat but then becomes cautious and careful, only removing a few of the trimmings. He represents a more moderate and ideal sect of Christianity, perhaps like the Hack’s, but the Hack is not concerned with that. Instead he is more concerned with explaining how Jack’s fanaticism to follow the will eventually grinds the coat down to nothing (98). The Hack suggests that taking the will as literally as Jack will eventually lead to an equally false religion as Peter, but at the other end of the spectrum.
4. The Satire on Anglicans
While using the allegory to attack the Catholics proved to be cutting and relevant, the Tale operates on a deeper level which turns the satire back onto the Anglican Church. Zimmerman notices the potential for the reflexivity, stating that “parody always has a disconcerting propensity to become very like the thing parodied” (Zimmerman 65). In this case, the Hack (who represents the Anglicans) takes on characteristics of the religions which he satires.
In the Tale, the Hack has many similarities to Peter. The Hack accuses Peter of varying the text of the will in order to serve himself (Swift 43). In actuality, the Hack does this same thing with his own text: he adds an “Apology” onto the beginning in order to alter the potential interpretations of the Tale (1). The Hack appears to be further like Peter when he claims he presents “his own excellencies and other men’s defaults” (63). This sort of self-promotion helped Peter convince his brothers to follow him by adding trimmings to their coats. Similarly, the Hack claims to have a “firm grip” on the reader (100). Peter has a firm grip on members of his sect who are willing to pay him for confessions.
Furthermore, both Peter and the Hack must assert the truth of what they say. Peter finds that once he knows how he wishes to alter his coat, he needs to have his brothers agree in order to prove that what he is doing is correct (Paulson 151). The Hack asserts the truth to the reader as well. He says that what he is writing is “literally true to the minute” (Swift 17), even though in his apology he backs away from that assertion (6). Like Peter, he may know that what he says is not correct, but he claims truth in order to get the reaction he desires.
The Hack attacks Peter for adding to the coat in a manner similar to the way that Anglicans have attacked Catholics for amending Christianity (Harth 37). This proves to be ironic when the Hack amends his own writing with an apology for the fifth edition. He again becomes as guilty as the objects of his satire.
In Section VIII of the Tale, Swift’s vision of the Aeolists (the sect who follows Jack the Puritan) is again reflected in the Hack. Harth says that preaching and public prayer is attacked by the Hack in this section (Harth 59). In actuality, the Hack writes in a preaching tone, explaining that his church is the most perfect (Swift 2).
Warren Montag relates this preaching to a section from the preface. The narrator explains that while there are different types of pulpits, they are “distinguished only by the sort of timber from which they have been fabricated” (Montag 121). This is the equivalent of stating that preaching is the same regardless of its form. The Hack is no better than the Aeolists for preaching. Paulson agrees, adding that the Hack becomes the “embodiment of zeal, enthusiasm, and various kinds of eccentricity which he seems to talk about satirically,” in the Aeolists and Jack (29). The Hack, who represents Anglicans, is guilty of the exact same abuses of religion as the religious fanatics he satirizes. Clearly, a satire on Anglicans functions here in addition to the satire on Puritans. Biographer Warren Montag agrees with Paulson regarding the Aeolist section saying the Hack’s writing “betrays its intention” (Montag 104).
Harth noticed another example of where the Hack proves to be hypocritical and exposes the Church of England. He cites that the fanaticism in the Tale results from the actions of a single man: Jack (Harth 116). Historically, the action of a single man is how the Church was founded in the first place. Henry VIII decided in 1527 that he wished for a divorce, and in 1532, with the help of Thomas Cromwell, the Church of England split from Rome (“Henry VIII” 4). The Hack’s religion proves to be founded on shaky reasoning, similar to the Aeolists.
The Hack’s structural choice for the Tale is another layer of satire. Biographer Irvin Ehrenpreis claims that Anglican thinking displays “an eagerness to keep the principles of Christianity simple and rational (Ehrenpreis 70). Even though the moderate son Martin does a reasonable job keeping his coat simple, the Hack’s Tale is anything but simple, with multiple digressions and heavily layered satire. The Hack hyperbolizes Jack’s attempts to keep the coat simple when he has him grind it down to nothing (Swift 98). If the Hack meant to preach simplicity, he would not show the dangers of a stripped down religion as he did with Jack.
While it may seem strange for the Hack to reveal his own religion’s flaws in satire, Montag demonstrates that Swift is acting on yet another level of satire. He claims that in “typical Anglican arguments,” Anglicans have difficulty distinguishing their own positions from the ones that they oppose. Instead “they prefer to turn their enemy’s batteries against him” (Montag 107). In addition, while the Hack seems to be making a blunder by exposing his religion’s flaws, Swift is using the Hack in this way on purpose. Frances Deutsch Louis considers this relationship to be much like a “puppet and master” (Louis 48). The Hack presents a satire on religion, while Swift the puppet master presents his own satire through the Hack.
5. The Reasoning
Since a concealed satire within a satire on Swift’s own Church of England seems to be at work in A Tale of a Tub, the obvious question to ask is why Swift would do this—especially since he puts himself at risk. Ehrenpreis wrote, regarding Swift, “one does not expect to find a simple form of religious faith” (Ehrenpreis 69). Although he was a member of the clergy, Swift’s tendency for criticism and inspection of society around him (evident in a life’s work of satire) makes it reasonable to assume that Swift’s intentions were to expose not only the abuses of Catholics and Puritans, but also his own religion as well. Swift’s addition of the “Apology,” as critic Judith Mueller claims, “emphasizes the complexity of his relation to the church” (Mueller 107). Even though he was made Dean of St. Patrick’s Parish, his title does not imply that he cannot question his own religion as well as others.
Since Swift wished to attack all religions, there must have been reasons why he was less blatant with his satire on Anglicans. In order to see the conflicts of his own religion, Swift entered “enemy camp” to be able to see another viewpoint (Montag 90). In the Tale, it is very difficult to see the satire on Anglicans without first understanding the obvious satire on the Catholics and Puritans. Once the reader can connect the similarities, he or she can begin to see the full message.
Part of this overriding message in the Tale is that the momentary effects have the greatest importance (Paulson 32). In order to have the effect of exposing the abuses of religion, Swift is aware of the sacrifice that he must make: he needs to reveal the flaws in his own religion as well. In the allegory of the three sons, their inherited coats are able to adjust themselves and grow even as the sons change (Swift 34). Since the coats are always going to exist (in other words, religion is always going to exist), it is the immediate changes in them that is of the greatest interest (Paulson 158). Thus, Swift is not merely “picking holes in the weak-side of religion,” as the Hack suggests that some modernists do, but instead Swift is aiming towards a higher intention of an unbiased exposure of the corruption in religion.
In Swift’s life in the clergy he was not always been entirely kind to his church. He openly admitted that there are faults in the “Established Church” (referring to the Church of England), but that it was still “the best one available” (Ehrenpreis 72). Using a bit of humor, Swift is still explicit that there are problems in his church. The Hack reaffirms this imperfection, but in a different manner. When referring to the Church of England, as “the most perfect of all others,” the Hack remains vague (Meuller 108). While claiming the Church to be superior to others, the word “most” implies that while it is close to perfect, it still fails on some level.
6. The Risk
Swift’s attacks on the Anglican Church in the Tale stem from a variety of readings of the text, but they all fulfill his intentions to expose the corruptions of multiple sects of Christianity. Although his sincerity in this criticism is never fully stated, the risk at which he puts himself for the sake of his satire demonstrates his dedication to his cause. Interestingly the Hack (which as explained in Section 2 provides clues that Swift himself is involved) defends a writer’s decision to take such a risk as Swift did. He claims “the greatest and best of human actions” is “to remove prejudices and place things in their truest and fairest light, without any regards of my own” (Swift 77). Swift again uses the Hack to convey his own feelings, stating that although he is at risk himself, he must not compromise his intentions.
The risk Swift took was very real, and jeopardized his position in the Church. Samuel Johnson explained how some readers of the Tale compromised his potential to move up in the Church: “Archbishop Sharp and the Duchess of Somerset, by showing it to the Queen, debarred him from a bishopric” (Mueller 102). Philip Pinkus backs up Johnson’s claim also stating that the Tale was the likely cause to keep his title as “Dean” instead of having a chance at becoming a bishop (Pinkus 28).
There are also hints throughout the text that point to Swift’s attempts to conserve his innocence in writing this satire. The Hack explains that he does not want his name attached to the Tale (Swift 102). If, as the “Apology” claims, Swift was not aware of the potential for a reader to see the “blasphemies” within the text, why would the Hack worry if his name were to be included? The element of Swift in the Hack shines through again in this instance because Swift actually did not put his name on the text when it was first published.
The Hack’s attempts to “duck out of responsibility” further demonstrate Swift’s desire to protect himself. In the text’s “Apology,” the Hack claims that the negative readings of the text “never once entered into the writer’s head,” but as Zimmerman points out, the Hack is trying to disclaim even the explanatory notes that Swift added himself to later editions which help explain the satire (Zimmerman 63).
Perhaps the most humorous instance of Swift (or the Hack) attempting to remove responsibility from the satire is when the Hack claims that he has no talent for satire (Swift 24). The incredibly numerous layers of satire at work in the Tale make this statement nothing short of laughable. Even though Swift’s talent for satire is obvious, the joke adds another layer of complexity and dissipates the focus on Swift. He knew exactly what sort of responses could come from writing such a satire, but he was willing potentially damage his career to expose the abuses of religion—an endeavor which Swift thought would cure many problems, but unfortunately not all of his contemporaries of the Church agreed with him (Harth 164).
7. Refutation
With the nearly endless number of different ways to read the Tale, some readers may disagree with the statement that not only were the Anglicans satirized but that Swift knowingly did so. As previously noted, the narrator of the Hack is distinctly tied to Jonathan Swift, but the fact remains that the Hack is not actually Swift. Some critics suggest that the Hack is merely an impersonation of the authors of his time (Harth 5). This cannot be the case. Readers of text (including the Queen, as mentioned in Section 6) are forced to see Swift’s politics. If the Swift were completely separate from the Hack, why would he go through any trouble to conceal his identity? Swift’s role in the clergy gave him an exceptionally intimate view of the Anglican Church—a view which provided him with the ability to see the troubles within that church. If he did not strongly feel that these corruptions needed to be shown, there would be no reason for the Hack (and therefore Swift) to include any attacks on Anglicans. Furthermore, more than three hundred years since it has been written, there is no doubt that Swift wrote the Tale. Even if he meant for the Hack to be simply an impression of other authors of his time, it cannot be disputed that it was Swift’s pen that wrote the satire. With the reputation that he holds, the complexities of these satires were undoubtedly intentional.
Another key point, which Philip Pinkus makes, is that the actual “tale,” the allegory of the will and the three sons, is only approximately one-third of the text under the title A Tale of a Tub (Pinkus 28). The rest of the text consists of “Digressions” which are mostly satirizing learning and have almost nothing to do with religion. Some would suggest this weakens the argument, because if Swift were highly invested in the satire of religion, he would have dedicated the entirety of the piece to it. This sort of reading ignores the Tale’s vast complexity and reduces its weight to the volume of the argument rather than content. While the satire on learning would not have been included if Swift did not want to make a comment on learning, its existence does not lessen the complex religious satire outlined here in previous sections. Simply because there is additional, unrelated text, this does not change the significance of the Tale that involves religion. As Johnson noted, this text is far more complex than other works of Swift, and therefore a smaller section cannot be shrugged off as insignificant.
8. Conclusion
Similar to the scene in Gulliver’s Travels where Gulliver urinates on the Church to fix its problem, Swift attacks not only the Catholics and Puritans, but he also turns his satire back towards his own Anglican Church. Swift manages to do this through an incredibly complex narrator known as the Hack.
The necessity for the Hack in A Tale of a Tub is apparent in the brief passage of the Tale from which it gets its title. The narrator explains that fisherman would often throw a whale an empty tub in order to divert its attention from them (Swift 18). The narrator provides a diversion for the readers to draw their attention away from Swift (Paulson 173). The significance of this diversion led Swift to title his Tale after this sentence. Swift was aware that by knowingly satirizing the Church of England, he would be forced to create such a diversion.
The importance of this satire to Swift was great enough for him to risk his own title in the clergy. As his narrator states in the “Apology,” “religion being the best of things, its corruption [is] the worse” (Swift 3). Swift’s role in the Church gave him the authority to question this corruption. Instead of simply satirizing the Catholics and Puritans, he embedded a more interesting satire on the Anglicans. His complex narrator helped to conceal his identity while adding to the levels of satire.
Swift wrote A Tale of a Tub in an attempt to expose the corruptions of religion. He did so with the intention to lead to improvement. Much like Gulliver, who was also only intending to help, Swift’s satire did not please other members of the Church. The Tale was successful, however, in its biting attacks on Christianity—placing it in its “truest and fairest light.”
Works Cited
Ehrenpreis, Irvin. Swift: The Man, His Works, and the Age. Vol. 3. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1983.
Harth, Phillip J. Swift and Anglican Rationalism. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1961.
"Henry VIII." Encyclopedia Britannica. 2006. Encyclopedia Britannica Online. 13 Apr. 2006 <http://search.eb.com/eb/article-3126>.
Louis, Frances Deutsch. Swift’s Anatomy of Misunderstanding. London: George Prior Publishers, 1981.
Montag, Warren. The Unthinkable Swift: The Spontaneous Philosophy of a Church of England Man. New York, NY: Verso, 1994.
Mueller, Judith. “Writing Under Constraint: Swift’s ‘Apology’ for A Tale of a Tub. ELH 60.1 (Spring 1993): 101-115.
Paulson, Ronald. Them and Structure in Swift’s A Tale of a Tub. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1960.
Pinkus, Philip. Swift’s Vision of Evil: A Comparative Study of a Tale of a Tub and Gulliver’s Travels. Vol. 1. University of Victoria, B.C. Canada: English Literary Studies, 1975.
Swift, Jonathan. A Tale of a Tub, and Other Works. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1986.
Swift, Jonathan. Gulliver’s Travels. New York, NY: Barnes and Noble Classics, 2003.
Zimmerman, Everett.Swift’s Narrative Satires. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. 1983.