Aristotle's plot

Aristotle devotes great attention to the nature, structure and basic elements of the ideal tragic plot. Tragedy is the depiction of action consisting of incidents and events. Plot is the arrangement of these incident and events. It contains the kernel of the action. Aristotle says that plot is the first principle, the soul of tragedy. He lists six formative elements of a tragedy – Plot, character, thought, melody, diction, spectacle and gives the first place to plot.

The Greek word for ‘poet’ means a ‘maker’, and the poet is a ‘maker’, not because he makes verses but he makes plots. Aristotle differentiates between ‘story’ and ‘plot’. The poet need not make his story. Stories from history, mythology, or legend are to be preferred, for they are familiar and understandable. Having chosen or invented the story, it must be put to artistic selection and order. The incidents chosen must be ‘serious’, and not ‘trivial’, as tragedy is an imitation of a serious action that arouse pity and fear.

Aristotle says that the tragic plot must be a complete whole. It must have a beginning, a middle and an end. It must have a beginning, i.e. it must not flow out of some prior situation. The beginning must be clear and intelligible. It must not provoke to ask ‘why’ and ‘how’. A middle is consequent upon a situation gone before. The middle is followed logically by the end. And end is consequent upon a given situation, but is not followed by any further incident. Thus artistic wholeness implies logical link-up of the various incidents, events and situations that form the plot.

The plot must have a certain magnitude or ‘length’. ‘Magnitude’ here means ‘size’. It should be neither too small nor too large. It should be long enough to allow the process of change from happiness to misery but not too long to be forgotten before the end. If it is too small, its different parts will not be clearly distinguishable from each other. Magnitude also implies order and proportion and they depend upon the magnitude. The different parts must be properly related to each other and to the whole. Thus magnitude implies that the plot must have order, logic symmetry and perspicuity.

Aristotle considers the tragic plot to be an organic whole, and also having organic unity in its action. An action is a change from happiness to misery or vice versa and tragedy must depict one such action. The incidents impart variety and unity results by arranging the incidents so that they all tend to the same catastrophe. There might be episodes for they impart variety and lengthen the plot but they must be properly combined with the main action following each other inevitably. It must not be possible to remove or to invert them without injuring the plot. Otherwise, episodic plots are the worst of all.

'Organic unity' cannot be provided only by the presence of the tragic hero, for many incidents in hero’s life cannot be brought into relation with the rest. So there should be proper shifting and ordering of material.

Aristotle joins organic unity of plot with probability and necessity. The plot is not tied to what has actually happened but it deals with what may probably or necessarily happen. Probability and necessity imply that there should be no unrelated events and incidents. Words and actions must be in character. Thus probability and necessity imply unity and order and are vital for artistic unity and wholeness.

'Probability' implies that the tragic action must be convincing. If the poet deals with something improbable, he must make it convincing and credible. He dramatist must procure, “willing suspension of disbelief”. Thus a convincing impossibility is to be preferred to an unconvincing possibility.

Aristotle rules out plurality of action. He emphasizes the Unity of Action but has little to say about the Unity of Time and the Unity of Place. About the Unity of Time he merely says that tragedy should confine itself to a single revolution of the sun. As regards the Unity of Place, Aristotle said that epic can narrate a number of actions going on all together in different parts, while in a drama simultaneous actions cannot be represented, for the stage is one part and not several parts or places.

Tragedy is an imitation of a ‘serious action’ which arouses pity and fear. ‘Serious’ means important, weighty. The plot of a tragedy essentially deals with great moral issues. Tragedy is a tale of suffering with an unhappy ending. This means that the plot of a tragedy must be a fatal one. Aristotle rules out fortunate plots for tragedy, for such plot does not arouse tragic emotions. A tragic plot must show the hero passing from happiness to misery and not from misery to happiness. The suffering of the hero may be caused by an enemy or a stranger but it would be most piteous when it is by chance caused by friends and relatives who are his well-wishers.

According to Aristotle, Tragic plots may be of three kinds, (a) Simple, (b) Complex and (c) Plots based on or depicting incidents of suffering. A Simple plot is without any Peripety and Anagnorisis but the action moves forward uniformly without any violent or sudden change. Aristotle prefers Complex plots. It must have Peripeteia, i.e. “reversal of intention” and Anagnorisis, i.e. “recognition of truth”. While Peripeteia is ignorance of truth, Anagnorisis is the insight of truth forced upon the hero by some signs or chance or by the logic events. In ideal plot Anagnorisis follows or coincides with Peripeteia.

'Recognition' in the sense is closely akin to reversal. Recognition and reversal can be caused by separate incidents. Often it is difficult to separate the two. Complex plots are the best, for recognition and reversal add the element of surprise and “the pitiable and fearful incidents are made more so by the shock of surprise”.

As regards the third kind of plot, Aristotle rates it very low. It derives its effect from the depiction of torture, murder, maiming, death etc. and tragic effect must be created naturally and not with artificial and theatrical aids. Such plots indicate a deficiency in the art of the poet.

In making plots, the poets should make their denouements, effective and successful. Unraveling of the plot should be done naturally and logically, and not by arbitrary devices, like chance or supernatural devices. Aristotle does not consider Poetic Justice necessary for Tragedy. He rules out plots with a double end i.e. plots in which there is happiness for one, and misery for others. Such plots weaken the tragic effect. It is more proper to Comedy. Thus Aristotle is against Tragi-comedy.

Swift's "Gulliver's Travels": A social satire

“Gulliver’s Travels” is a great work of social satire. Swift’s age was an age of smug complacency. Corruption was rampant and the people were still satisfied. Thus, Jonathan Swift tears the veil of smug complacency off which had blinded the people to realities. In “Gulliver’s Travels”, there is a satire on politics, human physiognomy, intellect, manners and morality.

In the first voyage to Lilliput, Swift satirizes on politics and political tactics practiced in England through Lilliputians, the dwarfs of six inches height. He satirizes the manner in which political offices were awarded by English King in his time. Flimnap, the Treasurer, represents Sir Robert Walpole who was the Prime Minister of England. Dancing on tight ropes symbolizes Walpole's skill in parliamentary tactics and political intrigues. The ancient temple, in which Gulliver is housed in Lilliput, refers to Westminster Hall in which Charles I was condemned to death. The three fine silk threads awarded as prizes to the winners refer to the various distinctions conferred by English King to his favourites. The Lilliputians were highly superstitious:

“They bury their dead with their head directly downwards because they hold an opinion that after eleven thousand moons they are all to rise again.”

Gulliver’s account of the annoyance of the Empress of Lilliput on extinguishing fire in her apartment is Swift’s satirical way of describing Queen Anne’s annoyance with him on writing “A Tale of a Tub”. Swift’s satire becomes amusing when Gulliver speaks of the conflict between the Big Endians and the Little Endians. In this account Swift is ridiculing the conflicts between the Roman Catholics and the Protestants. High Heel and Low Heel represent Whig and Tory – two political parties in England.

In the second voyage to Brobdingnag, there is a general satire on human body, human talents and human limitations. Gulliver gives us his reaction to the coarseness and ugliness of human body. When Gulliver gives an account, to the King of Brobdingnag, of the life in his own country, the trade, the wars, the conflicts in religion, the political parties, the king remarks that the history of Gulliver's country seems to be a series of conspiracies, rebellions, murders, revolutions and banishments etc. Kind condemns the fatal use of gunpowder and the books written on the act of governing. King mocks at the human race of which Gulliver is the agent.

“The most pernicious race of little odious vermin that nature ever suffered to crawl upon the surface of the earth.”

Swift here ridicules human pride and pretension. The sight is, indeed, horrible and disgusting. Among the beggars is a woman with a cancer in her breast.

“It stood prominent six feet, and could not be less than sixteen in circumference … spots and pimples that nothing could appear more nauseous.”

There is a man with a huge tumor in his neck; another beggar has wooden legs. But the most hateful sight is that of the lice crawling on their clothes. This description reinforces Swift views of the ugliness and foulness of the human body.

In the third voyage to Laputa, there is a satire on human intellect, human mind and on science, philosophy and mathematics. However, his satire is not very bitter. We are greatly amused by the useless experiments and researches, which are going on at the academy of Projectors in Lugado. Here scientists wants to extract sunbeams out of cucumbers, to convert human excrement into its original food, to build house from the roof downward to the foundation, to obtain silk from cobwebs and to produce books on various subjects by the use of machine without having to exert one’s brain.

“Their heads were inclined either to the right or to the left, one of their eyes turned inward, and the other directly up to Zenith.”

Swift amuses us by making a fun of the people whose sole interests are music and geometry.

“They made a lot of theories but practically nill.”

Swift here ridicules scientists, academics, planers, intellectual, in fact, all people who proceed, only according to theory which are useless when they come to actual practice. He satirizes historian and literary critics though Gulliver’s interviews with the ghosts of famous dead. The point f satire is that historian often distorts facts and literary critics often misinterpret great authors like Homer and Aristotle.

In the fourth voyage to Houyhnhnms, there is a bitter poignant satire on human moral shortcomings. Voyage contains some of the most corrosive and offensive satire on mankind. The description of the Yahoos given to us by Gulliver is regrettable.

“Yet I confess I never say any sensitive being so detestable on all accounts; and the more I came near them, the more hateful they grew.”

By contrast, the Houyhnhnms are noble and benevolent horses who are governed by reason and lead an ordered life. It is, indeed, a bitter criticism on the human race to be compared by the Houyhnhnms. The satire deepens when Gulliver gives an account, to the master Houyhnhnms, of the events in his country. He tells him that war in European countries was sometimes due to the ambition of kings and sometimes due to the corruption of the ministers. He speaks of the numerous deadly weapons, employed by European nations for destructive purposes. Many people in his country ruin themselves by drinking, gambling and debauchery and many are guilty of murders, theft, robbery, forgery and rape. The master speaks of the Yahoo’s love of shinning stones, their gluttony and their weakness for liquor. The master also speaks of the lascivious behaviour of the female Yahoos. By contrast, the Houyhnhnms are excellent beings.

“Here was neither physician to destroy my body not lawyer to ruin my fortune; no informer to watch my words and actions … here were no … backbiters, pickpockets, highwaymen, house-breakers … politicians, wits … murderers, robbers … no cheating shop-keeper or mechanics, no pride, vanity or affectation.”

They hold meetings at which the difficulties of their population are discussed and solved. They regulate their population and do not indulge in sexual intercourse merely for pleasure.

“Everything is calculated as the Plato’s Utopian land ‘The Republican’.”

Swift’s purpose here is to attribute to horses certain qualities which would normally be expected in human beings but which are actually lacking in them. Gulliver’s reaction o Houyhnhnms fills him so much admiration for them and with so much hatred and disgust for human beings that he has no desire even to return to his family.

Thus we see that “Gulliver’s Travels” is a great piece of art containing social satire in it. Every satirist is at heart a reformist. Swift, also, wants to reform the society by pinpointing the vices and shortcoming in it. And he very successfully satirizes on political tactics, physical awkwardness, intellectual fallacies and moral shortcomings.

Francis Bacon: Wisest, Brightest, Meanest

“If parts allure these think how Bacon shin’d

The wisest, brightest and meanest of mankind.”

Bacon was the wisest because of his worldly wisdom, he was brightest owing to his powerful intellect and the art of writing terse essays, and he was meanest due to his treacherous character.

The above mentioned remark on Bacon was made by a renowned and marvelous poet, “Alexander Pope”. If we observe critically, this statement holds its validity. For Bacon appeared to be a true child of Renaissance. Undoubtedly he was a man of wisdom and powerful intellect. But all at once he was a calculating character, keeping an eye on the main chance. He was a true follower of Machiavelli. He failed to harmonize his mixed motives, complex principles and high aims together. He wanted to strive after the selfless scientific truth but he was conscious that nothing could be done without money and power. So, he strived after material success. Bacon belonged to the age of glory and greatness, surprising meanness and dishonest conduct and he could not avoid these evils.

Bacon was a man of multi-talents. His wisdom was undeniable. The thirst for infinite knowledge and his versatility was truly astonishing. He possessed an intellect of the highest order. He was learned in Greek, French, Latin, English, Science, Philosophy, Classics and many other fields of knowledge. He is regarded as the creator of the modern school of experimental research. He held that “man is the servant and interpreter of nature”. He supplied the impulse which broke with the medieval preconceptions and set scientific inquiry on modern lines. He emphasized on experimentation and not to accept things for granted. Bacon was indeed an eloquent prophet of new era and the pioneer of modern sciences.

The essays of Bacon also portray his intellect and practical wisdom. The varied range of subjects too expresses that ‘he had taken all knowledge to be his province’. Bacon could utter weighty and pregnant remarks on almost any subject, from “Greatness of Kingdoms” to “Gardens”. The essays are loaded with the ripest wisdom of experience and observation conveyed through short, compact and terse sentences. One cannot deny the sagacity and shrewdness of his counsels. Bacon’s essays deal with man. He is an able analyst of human nature, and his conduct in public and private affairs. His comments regarding man’s behaviour may at times sound cynical but they are undeniable truths. He says:

“A mixture of a lie doth even add pleasure.”

Bacon is true here for most of the people would find life terrible without false hopes and false impressions. His views about friendship, though lacks in feelings and emotions, yet these are undeniably true to human nature.

Following are a few examples of his wisdom.

“One who studieth revenge, keeps his own wounds green”.

And

“Men in great places are thrice servants”.

So, like a very wise man he coin ideas and teaches them to make people wise in worldly terms.

Bacons brightness is best illustrated in the way in which he clothes his wisdom into brevity and lends the readers a great pleasure. The compactness of thought and conciseness of expression was a virtue in an age when looseness in thought and language was the rule. The essays are enriched with maxims and proverbs. He supports his ideas and arguments with innumerable quotations, allusions and analogies which prove his wide knowledge and learning. The aptness of the similes, the witty turn of phrases and the compact expression of weighty thoughts are evidence enough of the brightness of his intellect.

§ “Suspicions among thoughts are like bats among birds.”

§ “Money is like much, except it be spread.”

§ “Virtue is like precious adours --- most fragrant, when they are incensed or crushed.”

Moreover, the precise and authentic turn of sentences and the condensation of thoughts in them have been enhanced by the antithetical presentation. Such as:

“A lie faces God and shrinks from man.”

“The ways to enrich are many and most of them are foul.”

“It is a strange desire to seek power and to lose liberty.”

“Through indignation, men rise to dignity.”

Thus with the tool of antithesis, Bacon made his argument many times stronger and influential than a simple sentence. He created so much wit and strength in such precise writings that they are still valid and famous. No man individually did provide such strength and simplicity to the English language than Bacon. Bacon tried to reach the reader’s mind by a series of aphoristic attacks. Therefore he is considered as the pioneer of modern prose. There is hardly any equal of him for clear, terse and compact writing.

Now, it appears to be an irony of nature that a man with such a tremendous intellect and wisdom had such a mean character. Bacon was not mean in the sense of being a miser. He was indeed reputed to be a very generous. The manner in which Bacon betrayed his friends, especially Essex, proved him most ungrateful and ignoble man. He made friendship and uprightness subordinate to his success. He always kept his eye on the main chance, worshipping the rising sun and avoiding of the setting one.

His marriage was also a marriage of convenience. He did not hesitate to take part in political intrigues in order to promote his ambition. His letter to the king and queen were also full of flattery that it was hard to believe that they came from the pen of such an intellectual man.

Though he was wise yet he showed certain incapacity of emotions and this trait can also be witnessed in his essays. He took the purely personal and domestic matters of a man – like marriage, friendship, love etc in terms of pure utility. Such as:

“He that hath wife and children hath given hostages to fortune.”

And

“Those that want friends to open themselves unto are cannibals of their own heart.”

In short, Bacon was a man of the world – worldly wisdom and worldly convenience. He had a “great brain” but not a “great soul”. His complex and contradictory characters will continue to be a psychological enigma for the readers to understand. So, he was definitely the wisest, brightest and meanest of mankind.

Francis Bacon: Worldly Wisdom

Bacon was, definitely, a worldly wise man. He was the wisest and the meanest of mankind. He was truly of Renaissance; the age of accumulating knowledge, wealth and power. Being a true follower of Machiavellian principles, he led his life for worldly success. He was a man of shrewd and sagacious intellect with his eyes fixed on the main chance. And what he preached in his essays was also the knowledge, needed for worldly success.

There is no doubt that Bacon’s essays are a treasure house of worldly wisdom. The term worldly wisdom means a wisdom which is necessary for worldly success. It does not need any deep philosophy or any ideal morality. But Bacon was a man of high wisdom, as he himself pronounced, “I have taken all knowledge to be my province”. Bacon also preached morality but his morality is subordinate to worldly success and he never hesitated to sacrifice it for worldly benefit. His essays are rich with the art which a man should employ for achieving success in his life, such as shrewdness, sagacity, tact, foresight, judgment of character and so on.

The subject of Bacon in his essays is the man who needs prosperity in worldly terms. Bacon’s essays bring men to ‘come home to men’s business and bosoms’. He teaches them, how to exercise one’s authority and much more. When he condemns cunning, it is not because of a hateful and vile thing, but because it is unwise. That is why the wisdom in his essay is considered a ‘cynical’ kind of wisdom. He describes his essays as ‘Counsels – civil and moral’.

In his essay “Of Truth”, Bacon appreciates truth and wishes people to speak the truth. He says:

“A lie faces God and shrinks from man.”

He warns human beings against the punishment for the liar on the doomsday. But at the same time, he considers a lie as an ‘alloy’ which increases the strength of gold and feels it necessary for the survival on earth. He says:

“A lie doth ever add pleasure.”

---this is purely a statement of a “worldly wise man”.

The essay “Of Great Places” though contains a large number of moral precepts yet in this very same essay he also preaches worldly success.

“It is a strange desire to seek power and to lose liberty; By pains men come to greater pains”.

Then Bacon suggests that men in authority should work not only for the betterment of public but also for their own status:

“All rising to great place is by a winding stair; and if there be factions, it is good to side a man’s self whilst he is rising and to behave himself when he is placed.”

It is purely a utilitarian advice and it surely holds a compromise between morality and worldly success. Even when Bacon urges a man not to speak ill of his predecessor, it is not because of high morality but because of the fact that the man who does not follow advice would suffer with unpleasant consequences.

Bacon’s approach towards studies is also purely utilitarian. In his essay “Of Studies”, he does not emphasize on study for its own sake, but for the benefit which it can provide to man to be supplemented by practical experience.

“Reading maketh a full man, conference a ready man and writing an exact man.”

And then he says:

“Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested.”

Bacon also points out the effects of different branches of studies on a man’s mind and thinks it helpful in the cure of different mental ailments and follies.

His essay “Of Suitors” totally reveals Bacon’s shrewd insight. Although he suggests that a suitor should not be disloyal towards his petition and should tell him the truth about the chances of winning the suit without leaving him wandering in false hopes. Bacon suggests that a patron should not charge extensive amounts for a small case. But then he dilutes all this by saying if the patron wants to support the non-deserving party, he should make a compromise between both of them, so that the deserving party would bear not great loss. This is a purely utilitarian approach and it shows what Bacon himself had been in his career, for it was his own profession.

In the essay “Of Revenge” Bacon shows a certain high morality by saying that:

“Revenge is a kind of wild justice; One who studieth revenge, keeps his own wounds green.”

He feels dignity in forgiving ones enemy. But then he says that even revenge is just in the cases when one can save one’s skin from the hands of law.

Bacon showed a certain incapacity for emotions. He took the relation of friendship for its benefit and made a purely worldly approach to the subject which intimately deals between two persons. He gave us the uses and abused of friendship. He says:

“Those that want friends to open themselves unto, are cannibals of their own hearts.”

This essay clearly shows Bacon’s cynical wisdom and that his morality is stuffed with purely utilitarian considerations.

Bacon considers love as a ‘child of folly’. In his essay “Of Love” he says:

“It is impossible to love and to be wise.”

He considers wife and children as hindrance in the way of success and progress. He says:

“He that hath wife and children hath given hostages to fortune.”

Afterwards in his essay “Of Marriage and Single Life” he tells the ‘benefits’ of a wife.

“Wives are young men’s mistresses, companion to middle age and old man’s nurse.”

In his essay “Of Parents and Children” Bacon puts:

“Children sweeten labour, but they make misfortune more bitter.”

All these statements show his essentially mean and benefit seeking attitude, even in the matters of heart. In short, Bacon’s essays are a “hand book” of practical wisdom enriched with maxims which are very helpful for worldly wisdom and success.

Francis Bacon: A Moralist

Bacon is not a true moralist. His morality is a saleable morality. He is a moralist-cum-worldly wise man. Bacon appears as a moralist in his essays, for he preaches high moral principles and lays down valuable guidelines for human conduct. Some of his essays show him as a true lover and preacher of high ethical codes and conducts. For instance, in “Of Envy”, he puts:

“A man that hath no virtue in himself, ever envieth virtue in others.”

Then, in his essay “Of Goodness and Goodness of Nature” he says:

“But in charity there is no excess; neither can angel or man come in danger by it.”

Again, he appears to be a lover of justice in his essay “Of Judicature”:

“The principal duty of a judge is to suppress force and fraud.”

In spite of all given examples, one cannot deny the fact that Bacon was a “Man of Renaissance”. He had a deep insight in human nature. He knew that man is naturally more prone to evil than good. He was a clear-eyed realist who saw the weakness in human nature and drawbacks of human conduct and also knew that man is not capable of acting according to noble set of ‘ideals’. Though Bacon’s morality was greater than that of average man’s, yet it was not of the highest order. The matter of good and right was important for him but not if it proved too costly in worldly terms. On one hand, he preached high moral principles and on the other hand, he also expressed a mean capacity by compromising upon those morals for the sake of worldly success. For this reason, William Blake, a spiritual poet says about his essays:

“Good advice for Satan’s Kingdom.”

Blake considers any utilitarian advice contrary to God’s ways, but Bacon does not bother for that. He considers this world more important and striving after the success in this world is equally important. Bacon discusses man as he “appears” and not as he “ought to appear”.

In his essay “Of Great Places” Bacon certainly shows a high morality when he condemns or at least dislikes the practice of ‘wrongs’ on part of high officials.

“In place there is license to do good and evil; where of the latter is a curse.”

Afterwards he appreciates the power of doing good.

“But power to do good, is true and lawful end of aspiring.”

But besides these moral approaches, he also supports the idea of adopting certain disloyal means to reach a high position.

“It is good to side a man’s self whilst he is in the rising and to balance himself when he is placed”.

Thus, like a moralist, Bacon preaches the noble dimensions of great place, but with this statement his purely utilitarian approach also comes forth with all its power.

In the essay “Of Truth” he appears to be a ‘genuine’ admirer of truth and seems to install the love of truth in his readers.

“It is heaven upon earth, to have man’s mind move in charity, rest in providence and turn upon the poles of truth.”

But he also points out that

“Falsehood is like an ‘alloy’ in gold and silver, which makes the metal work better even though it reduces, the value of the metal”.

He says:

“A mixture of a lie doth ever add pleasure.”

By putting this he has diluted all the effect of his own words said in the praise of the truth.

One can find the same strange mixture of high ethics and utilitarianism in the essay “Of Revenge”. In this essay Bacon condemns revenge by saying:

“Revenge is a kind of wild justice.”

And

“One who studieth revenge, keeps his own wounds green.”

He expressed that there is no place of revenge in high society and it is a high quality to forgive an enemy. Hereafter, Bacon spoils the effects by putting that in some cases man is justified in taking revenge, if the avenger can save his skin from the eyes of the law. He says:

“But then let a man take heed the revenge be such as there is now law to punish; else a man’s enemy is still forehand”.

In his essay “Of Suitors” Bacon says that a man should refuse to undertake a suit if it is by giving a false hope to the petitioner and that one should not demand undue reward for his services. Those who employ crooked methods to win suits are the worst offenders of society. But he also says that if a patron wants to favour the undeserving party, he should bring both the parties to a compromise for this would be less dangerous for him. So, to Bacon, morality and ethical codes seem inferior to worldly considerations.

“Of Simulation and Dissimilation” is another example of the strange mixture of morality and prudence.

“The best position and temperature is; to have openness in fame and opinion; secrecy in habits; dissimulation in seasonal use; and power to feign, if there be no remedy.”

Bacon’s morality has also been described as a cynical kind of wisdom. This impression is confirmed by even those essays which deal with strong private relations between men. “Of Friendship”, “Of Parents and Children”, “Of Marriage and Single life” and “Of Love”, all depict a certain kind of utilitarianism and worldly benefit. Here Bacon expresses a definite failure of emotions, for he takes the pure matters of heart in terms of their uses and abuses.

In short, though Bacon’s essays portray morality and high ethical standards, yet he does not appear as an ideal moralist and these are but the “flashes of morality”. He is not a true moralist.

Is swift a misanthrope?

Swift is not a misanthrope rather he is a philanthrope. It is the misconception of those who think Swift as a misanthrope. Swift only wants to reform mankind out of their follies and stupidities. He says that the chief end of all his labour is:

“to vex the world rather than divert it”.

Secondly, he declares that:

“I have ever hated all nations, professions, and communities and all his love is towards individuals.”

Thirdly, though Swift does not believe that:

“Man is a rational animal”.

Yet he believes that:

“Man is capable of becoming rational if he makes the necessary efforts.”

But we see that Swift is notorious for being misanthrope. He was subjected to this allegation during his lifetime because the critics, identifying Gulliver with Swift, attributed Gulliver’s blunders to Swift. That Gulliver, in the last voyage, becomes a misanthrope is undeniable and indisputable. Prima facie, it appears that by developing a negative view of mankind, he starts preferring horses to men, but a solid reason of Swift underlies this act of Gulliver.

We observe that in the fourth voyage, Gulliver reaches a country of animals, ruled by animals. There are two categories of animals living there in: ugly and repulsive brutes – Yahoos:

“Yahoos who are unteachable brutes, cunning, gluttonous and disposed to great mischief”.

And comparatively better and nice-looking animals – Houyhnhnms. The moment he enters the country he is confronted with Yahoos and they give him such a nasty and obnoxious treatment that he develops a disliking for them in his heart, which is later converted into hatred owing to their disgusting physical appearance and their filthy and mischievous way of life. But his first meeting with Houyhnhnms, on the other hand, proves a nice experience. And this:

“First impression proves the last impression”.

They secure him against Yahoos, behave properly and gracefully escort him to their abode.

“The behaviour of horses shows him to be animals with an extraordinary power of understanding.”

Naturally, this kind of treatment creates a sort of fondness in Gulliver's heart for Houyhnhnms and their way of life. Upto this time, nothing is objectionable, but his fault begin when he become so enamored of Houyhnhnms that he starts hating man or equating Yahoos with men, he begins to abhor Man. He develops a general hatred against all men. All the subsequent incidents – his hatred against the Captain, against his family, etc. – reflect his misanthropy.

The blunder which Gulliver committed is that, he over-idealizes them because Gulliver is a man who is fed up with Man’s corruption. Therefore, he cannot see corruption in Man. He finds Yahoos in a detestable and abhorrent condition on account of their being a slave of emotions, sensuality and sentimentality. He says:

“Yet I confess I never saw any sensitive being so detestable on all accounts; and the more I came near them, the more hateful they grew, while I stayed in that country.”

Houyhnhnms, in a comparatively better condition, lack that type of corruption that Yahoos have, for Houyhnhnms have no emotion.

“Houyhnhnms are free from lust and greed.”

Naturally, he attributes whole of Man’s corruption to emotions, passions and sentimentality. As a remedy, he starts hating emotions, passion and he falls a victim to pure intellect.

“Here was neither physician to destroy my body, nor lawyer to ruin my fortune, here were no gibers, …, backbiters, …, bawds, …, ravishers, murderers or … poxes.”

So, he mis-idealize Houyhnhnms, due to their pure intellect, somehow establishes a subjective ideal before him i.e. to be a man is to have pure intellect. He thinks:

“The only remedy for doing away with Man’s corruption and pollution is to get rid of all kinds of emotions”.

In the country of Houyhnhnms, when Gulliver has a choice, he adopts for the Houyhnhnms way of life, completely rejecting Yahoos’ path. But when he is compelled to leave the country and to break away form his beloved way of life, and to come to another way of life which he dislikes, it is but natural for him to hate it. In fact, his this ideal is perfectly erroneous. Swift says:

“Idealism leads towards destruction.”

So, it is wrong to detest Man, equating him with Yahoos and it is again inappropriate to set up the ideal of perfect man on the basis of Houyhnhnms’ pure intellect because neither a Houyhnhnms nor a Yahoo is a man, instead, man is a juxtaposition of both intellect and emotions.

“The best code of conduct is Golden Mean which is ‘balance’.”

So he mis-defines Man. However, the fact of the matter remains whether Swift becomes a misanthrope or not, but can we impute Gulliver’s misanthropy to Swift? If we virtually succeed to establish, some identity between Swift and Gulliver, Swift, too, will become a misanthrope.

But according to Swift a man is he who strikes a balance between rationality and sensuality and this balance is not gifted by birth. It has to be acquired. That’s why even Gulliver is subjected to Swift’s satire, for he loses the said balance.

That is the reason we don’t identify Gulliver with Swift and, inspite of Gulliver’s misanthropy, we call Swift a great philanthropist. As he, himself, says:

“I write for the noblest end, to inform and instruct mankind.”

Bertrand Russell: Prose Style

Bertrand Russell is one of the greatest masters of English Prose. He revolutionized not only the subject matter but also the mode of expression. He has in him a happy blend of greatest philosopher and a great writer. He was awarded Nobel Prize for literature in 1950. The subject matter of his essays may be very difficult but his manner of expression is so lucid and simple that even a layman can understand him without any special difficulty. It is a rare privilege which only few prose masters enjoy. The precision and clarity which Russell’s prose style possesses are very rare in the bulk of English prose. 

Russell has justly been regarded as one of the great prose stylists of the 20th century. Although he is not a literary writer yet his work devoted mainly to problems of philosophy, ethics, morality, political, social life and economics, etc. impresses us greatly by its literary qualities. 

Of course, Russell's style sometimes becomes difficult for the average reader who comes across sentences which he has read for more than once in order to get the meaning. Russell’s style appeals mainly to our intellects and very little to our feelings or emotions. He uses words simply as tools, to convey his meaning plain and effective and not to produce any special effects. It is not a coloured or gorgeous style. Nor is there any passion in it. It is somewhat cold. 

There are no “jeweled phrases” in his writings nor sentences over which we would like to linger with the aesthetic pleasure. Russell’s style is intellectually brilliant. He can condense an idea or a thought in a few words if he so desires. Russell is always direct, simple and lucid. He knows that the complexity of expression leads to ambiguity. Nothing can be more lucid than such opening lines: 

“Happiness depends partly upon external circumstances and partly upon oneself.”

“Of all the institutions that have come down to us from the past, none is so