Self-Representation, Authority, and the Fear of Madness in the Works of Swift

Abstract

Self-RepresentationyAuthority,and the Fear of MadnessintheWorksofSwift BRIANA.CONNERY*1heophilusSwift,inhislettertothepublisherofSwiftiana,recounts JonathanSwift'sindignationuponcatchingoneofhisservantsinalie: "Why,youimpudent,confoundedrascal!howdareyoulieafterthis manner?Youpretendtotelllies!Youpretendtotellmelies!/,you rascal,whohavebeenacquaintedwithallthegreatliarsoftheage!... Getalong,yourascal!Howdareyoutelllies!"1ThequestionSwift playfullyposeshereisthequestionofthebasisforauthority. FromSwift'searlyodestotheTale-teller'sopeningdiscussionofthe pulpit,theladder,andthestageitinerant,andthroughtotheseeming self-promotionofpoemslike"VersesontheDeathofDr.Swift,"ques- tionsofthebasisofauthorityandthemeanstoauthorizationarecrucial inSwift'sworks.Repeatedly,Swift'sindignationseemsrousednotso muchbyhisenemies'andopposition'sbeliefsasbytheiraudacityin publishingthemtotheworld."Everyman,"hewrites,"asamemberof thecommonwealth,oughttobecontentwiththepossessionofhisown opinionsinprivate,withoutperplexinghisneighbor,ordisturbingthe public."2AttackingSteele'sGuardianpapers,Swiftexplodes:"Iask, WhatShadowofaPretensehashetoofferhiscrudeThoughtsinMat- tersofState?toPrintandPublishthem?TolaythembeforetheQueen andMinistry?"(PW,8:15). Swiftwasconcernedhere,aselsewherethroughoutthiswork,witha 165 166 / CONNERY veryfundamentalsenseofauthority:permissiontospeak.Thislicensehe wasreluctanttogranttoothersandhesitantaswelltogranttohimself. ThequestionofauthoritywasproblematizedforSwiftbyinnumerable factors,nottheleastofwhichwashisoftenapparentsenseoftheincipi- entmadnessofhumanity,aspresentedinhisanecdotaldefinitionof madnessin"SomeThoughtsonFreeThinking:" AprelateofthekingdomofIreland...said,thatthedifference betweenamad-manandoneinhiswits,inwhatrelatedtospeech, consistedinthis:Thattheformerspokeoutwhatevercameintohis mind,andjustintheconfusedmannerashisimaginationpresentedhis ideas.Thelatteronlyexpressedsuchthoughtsashisjudgementdirected himtochuse,leavingtheresttodieawayinhismemory.Andifthe wisestmanwouldatanytimeutterhisthoughts,inthecrudeundigested mannerastheycameintohishead,hewouldbelookeduponasraving mad.3 (PW,4:48) Twofacetsofthisdescriptionofmadnessareofinteresthereinrela- tiontoadiscussionofauthorizationandauthority.First,whileall people,even"thewisestman,"arepotentiallymad(individualreason beingimperfect,andtheimaginationandpassionbeingstrong),madness makesitswayintotheworldthroughspeechuponthecollapseofjudg- ment,andischaracterized,subsequently,as"madness"bylistenersor audience,theinterpretivecommunity.Thespeakerorauthor,without confirmationfromtheaudience,canneitherconfidentlyassertorrely uponpersonaljudgmentandconcomitantsanity.Madnessbeginswith self-authorization—self-grantedpermissiontospeak.Self-authorization, asSwift'sTale-tellersuggests,canleadtoself-proselytization,and"once amanmakesaproselyteofhimself,theDifficultyisnotsogreatin bringingoverothers."4SuspicionslikeSwift'softheadequacyofhuman reasonwerecommonduringtheRestorationandearlyeighteenthcen- tury,andSwift'sanecdotaldefinitioncloselyparallelsapassageinLocke suggestingthat"thereisscarceamansofreefrom[madness,oropposi- tiontoreason]butthatifheshouldalways,onalloccasions,argueordo asinsomecasesheconstantlydoes,wouldnotbethoughtfitterfor Bedlamthancivilconversation."5Here,again,madnessisidentifiedas mostmanifestindiscourse:conversation.Secondly,thismodel—like thatofferedintheTale—representsimagination,potentiallybothchaoticanddelusory ,asatthecenteroftheself,thepointoforiginof thought,acteduponsubsequentlybyreasonorjudgment. Wordsthemselves,accordingtoLocke,becausebaseduponpersonal associations,areapttorevealeccentricitiesormadness(3.1-11).The implicationsofsuchastateofaffairsforanauthor,asSwiftamply Self-Representation,Authority,andtheFearofMadness / 167 illustratesintheTale,arefar-reachingandpotentiallydumbfounding. Certainty,theonlypossiblesoundjustificationforself-authorization, becomesamarkofmadness,whiletherecognitionoffallibility—along withaconsequentreticencetospeak—becomesatraitofsanity.Howcan anyonepretendtoauthority?Towriteandpublishbecomesperilous. MichaelDePorteand,morerecently,RoyPorterhavepointedtothecase oftheconfinedBedlamitepoetJamesCarkessewhowroteinorderto provehimselfsaneandyetindoingsoriskedconfirmingthediagnosisof madness.6Hiswritingdenyinghismadness,indeed,wasusedasevidence ofthestubbornnessofhisdelusion.Porterconcludes,infact,thattreat- mentofthemadnecessarilyincludedthesuppressionofspeech:"[I]twas believedimportantforenhancingcureprospects,tominimizemadtalk. Attendingtothedelusionsofthemadwouldonlyconfirmthemintheir system."7 Theimplicationsoftheuncertaintyofselfandreasonforanywriter— andespeciallyforasatirist—aresevere.Toenterintodiscoursewith others,particularlysatiricaldiscourse,onemustinsistuponone'sown vision—evenwhile,inSwift'scase,attackingtheveryideaofvision.To writeistoriskexposingone'sownmadness. Thealternativetoriskingtheexposureofmadnessissilence,and variationsuponastrategyofsilenceinformasubstantialportionof Swift'sworks.Indeed,silencing,isoftenSwift'sgoal.Ratherthanwrit- ingsatireinanattemptto"annihilateevil,"asW.B.Camochanand otherswouldhaveit,8ortopunishvice,Swift'spurpose,asisclearinthe caseoftheBickerstaffPapers,frequentlyseemsmoremoderate:the silencingofthemadspeechandwritingofhisvictims.ButwhileSwift attemptstosilenceothers,hemust—inordernottorevealhisownincipi- entmadness—silencehimself,oratleastdetach(him)selffromthedis- course.Thisheaccomplishesinthreedifferentways:1)mostobviously, throughthedevelopmentofpseudo-authorswhose"selves"areclearly notwhollySwift;2)throughtheuseofirony,whichunsayswhatit asserts;and3)throughthepresentationofaSwiftinthethirdperson, whosecharacteristicsarebothself-contradictoryandhistoricallyinaccu- rate,therebypreventingthereaderfromidentifyinganytrueselfasthe originaryself-authorizingvoice. Theproblemofhisownself-authorizationisneatlydodgedbySwiftin theTale(andsubsequentprosesatires)throughtheuseofpersonaand irony.Hecreatesanauthor,asFrederickSmithsuggests,whoisparticu- larlyevidentbecauseofhisself-consciousness,andsimultaneouslydenies theconnectionbetweenthepseudo-authorandhimself.9Throughtheuse ofbothapseudo-authorandironiclanguage,Swiftescapesassertion, self-authorization,andtheriskofmadness,thatis,thereductionof"the 168 / CONNERY NotionsofallMankind,exactlytothesameLengthandBreadth,and Heightofhisown"(Tale,166).Sartreexplainsthat"Inironyaman annihilateswhathepositswithinoneandthesameact;heleadsusto believeinordernottobebelieved;heaffirmstodenyanddeniesto affirm...."10Throughthenegationinherentinirony,Swiftescapesthe seemingnecessityofassertionandself-authorizationandisablehimself tomaintainaneffectivesilence. AreviewofSwift'sworkbeforetheTale,specificallyhisodes,demon- stratesanapparentlyquiteself-consciousstrugglewiththeproblemof self-authorization.Swift'ssenseofhisownpotentiallackofliterary judgment,self-knowledge,andwriterlyconsciencetroubledhimduring theseearlyattemptsatpoetry.Inalettertohiscousin,ThomasSwift, whileworkingontheSaneròftode,Swiftconfesses: Ihaveasortofvanity,orFoibles,Idonotknowwhattocallit...that Iamoverfondofmyownwritings.Iwouldnothavetheworldthinkso foramillion,but'tisso,andIfindwhenIwrittwhatpleasesmeIam Cowleytomyselfandcanreaditahundredtimesover,Iknow'tisa desperateweaknessandhasnothingtodefenditbutit'ssecrecy,andI knowfarther,thatIamwhollyinthewrong,buthavethesamepretense theBaboonhadtopraiseherChildren,andindeedIthinkthelovein bothismuchalike." Inthesepoems,whichmostreaderscharacterizeasunsuccessful,thevery lackofsuccess,whetherrealoritselfasemi-satiricironicdemonstra- tion,12illustratestheproblemssubsequentlyanatomizedintheTale. Inthe"OdetotheKing,"Swiftclearlytriestoappropriatetohimself, aspoet,theinstitutionalauthorityoftheking.Similarly,inthe"Odeto Congreve,"heattemptstoappropriatetheauthorityoftheestablished author.Bothpoemsfail.Intheotherodes,themenwhomSwiftchooses topraiseandthemenofwhoseauthorityhewishestherebytopartake— Temple,Sancroft,andtheeditor(s)oftheAthenianMercury—axe laudedmostnotablyfortheirabsenceorsilence.Templeispraisedfor hisEpicureanretreat.Sancroftiscommendedforhisrefusaltospeak. TheeditoroftheMercuryispraisedas,ineffect,aselflessself,a"great unknown,"anauthoritymaskedinanonymityandthereforelackinga fullypresentandself-authorizingauthor. Sancroftbecomesanemblemfortruth—notbecausehehasspokenthe truthbutbecause,liketruth,whichhasfledtheworld,hehasabsented himself.Virtue,overlookedwhenpresent,becomesvisible,asifby reflection,whenabsent:"ThusSancroft,intheexaltationofretreat/ Self-Representation,Authority,andtheFearofMadness / 169 Showslustrethatwasshadeinhisseat."13Theimagesofbothtruthand theiconicSancroft,likeirony,operateonprinciplesofabsence,reflec- tion,anddeflection.Thedominantmetaphorthroughoutthepoem, echoingoneofLocke'smostdisturbingimagesofthemind,isthatofthe ghostlyimageofthecameraobscura,aselfthatisnotaself(andaprecursortothe"GhostofWit"intheTale-teller'sexperimentofwriting uponnothing). Ofmostinterestinthisode,however,isthepoet'sstruggletoidentify hisproperrelationshipwithdiscourse.Thepoemalternates—seemingly uncontrollably—betweenpanegyricandsatiricoutburst.Inhisopening satireofaworldfromwhichtruthhasfled,thepoetcharacterizescon- temporarydiscourseasmad: Howshallwefindthee[truth]thenindarkdisputes? Howshallwesearchtheeinabattlegained? Oraweakargumentbyforcemaintained? Indagger-contestsandtheartilleryofwords, (Forswordsaremadmen'stongues,andtonguesaremadmen'sswords) Contrivedtotireallpatienceout, Andnottosatisfythedoubt. (10-16) Discourse,alreadyinfectedbyfaction,ischaracterizedasmadideolog- icalcombat,inwhichwordsfindtheirsolesupportnotinreasonbutin force,thepowerofself-assertion,exactlythe"psychicimperialism,"as MichaelDePortehascharacterizedit,14whichisthemadnessofthe Tale-teller.Yetasthepoemcontinues,thepoethimselfisdrawnineluc- tablyintomaddiscourseashesatirizesothers,usinghisowntongueas asword:"Eachline,"hepromises,"shallstab,shallblast,likedaggers andlikefire"(91).Subsequentlythepoetretreats,likeTempleand Sancroft,re-composinghimself,andre-addressinghismuse:"Forgive (originalmildness),thisill-governedzeal,"asking,ineffect,forthe musetostophimbeforehesatirizesagain.Thisalternationbetween satiricattackandsubmissiveretreat,theconflictbetweentheurgesto maddiscourseandsilence,ischaracteristicthroughouttheodes,and theconflictbetweentherivalimpulsesmakestheodetoSancroft impossibletoresolvesatisfactorily.Thepoemseems,perhapsnecessar- ily, unfinished. The"OdetotheAthenianSociety,"addressedtotheanonymouspub- lisheroftheAthenianMercury,againlinkstruthwithretreatandano- nymity,andagaintracesthedeclineoftruthinthehistoryofmad discourse: 170 / CONNERY Philosophy,asitbeforeuslies, Seemstohaveborrowedsomeungratefultaste Ofdoubts,impertinence,andniceties, Fromeveryagethroughwhichitpassed... Moreofteninfools'andmadman'shandsthansages Sheseemsamedleyofallages.... (211-20) Authors,here,almostbydefinition,arefoolsandmadmen.Swift'ssubsequent "TriticalEssayupontheFacultiesoftheMind,"likethe7a/e, makesclearthathisobjectionremainsprimarilyagainsthemadimperti- nenceofauthorsintheirself-authorization:"ButwhatIblamethePhil- osophersfor,(althoughsomemaythinkitaParadox)ischieflytheir Pride;nothinglessthananipsedixit,andyoumustpinyourFaithon theirSleeve....'"5Thosewhodeclinetoself-authorize,likethe"great unknown"towhomtheAthenianSocietyodeisaddressed,arethekeepersoftruthwiththeirsilences :"[M]enwholivedanddiedwithouta name/Arethechiefheroesinthesacredlistoffame"(306-7). Inhiscriticismoftheearlyodes,JohnIrwinFisherhasofferedan explanationofboththeirfailureandtheircrucialsignificanceinthe developmentofSwift'spoeticart,arguingthattheodesfail,ultimately, becauseofthepoet'sincreasingawarenessofthedisparitybetweentheir spiritandcontentandthepoet'srealfeelings.Inhisattemptstochannel hispoeticenergyintopanegyricandtherebytoportrayhimselfasthe optimisticauthorizedpanegyrist,Swiftperhapsattainedaknowledgeof himself,hisperspective,andhisabilities,whichwoulddramatically affecthisworkwhenhereturnedtoverselaterinhiscareer.Fisher commentsonSwift'seffortstowardsself-knowledgeinhispoems: Viewedsymptomatically,self-knowledgeisalsoapeculiargoalin thatprogresstowardsitisoftenmarkednotbyevidenceofan increasingwisdombutratherbyincreasinglyobviousinstancesof prevaricationandself-delusion.Thisisbecause,astherealtissuesof personalitybegintosurfaceinamanorinhispoems,hypocrisyand semi-consciousevasionofthetruthbecomeatonceverytemptingto himandincreasinglyobvioustohisobserversorhisreaders.16 Thisseemseminentlytrueand,whenappliedtoSwift,eminentlyapt, exceptforthesuggestionofself-delusion.AsIhavearguedthusfar, Swift'sworksmakemanifestlyclearasenseofthehumanpsycheas naturallydisorderedanddisposedtomadness.Ifthisistrue,thenthe disparitybetweenone'sidealselfandone'srealselfmustindeedbegreat, andtheachievementofself-knowledgecannotbutbedisillusioning. Pride,asFishersuggests,iscertainlyacommonmotiveformisrepresent- Self-Representation,Authority,andtheFearofMadness / 171 ingoneselfasbetterthanonereallyis.However,aswewillsee,insome wayssuchidealizationoftheselfinthelaterpoemsis,forSwift,notso muchanevasionofprivatetruthasadutypromptedbypublic responsibility. ThepoetisonthehornsofthedilemmaproposedbytheTale-tellerin the"DigressiononMadness."Surfacesaremoreattractivethanrealities. InhisProjectfortheAdvancementofReligionandtheReformationof Manners,Swiftunironicallypromoteshypocrisyasagoodsuperiorto acquiescencetoman'sfallennatureasitisrevealedinthedepthsofself: "HypocrisyismuchmoreeligiblethanopenInfidelityandVice"(PW...