Distraction in Jonathan Swift’s A Tale of a Tub

Jonathan Swift, an Anglo-Irishman by heritage, was primarily known for his satirically inclined works in English Literature during the seventeenth-and-eighteenth-century literary movements called the Restoration and Augustan Periods. Swift’s comical diction in A Tale of a Tub underlined his conservative values and strong devotion to the Anglican Church which aided his projection in gauging the falseness of Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan, published in 1651. Swift used his political and religious status to fight discrepancies Hobbes made that threatened monarchy and Christian ideologies.

Hobbes’ Leviathan reminded Englishmen of the English Civil War’s purpose three years prior and its lasting impact; the book’s suggestions also helped Englishmen understand what government should look like from an individualized perspective when the people rule and a secular, authoritative power mediates. In turn, Swift’s written attacks, in A Tale of a Tub, single-handedly distracted English society and the Church from succumbing to Hobbes’ suggestions in eliminating the government, replacing it with an autocratic-like dictator. A Tale of a Tub acts as a handbook in guiding readers to determine whether disguised secular ideas like Hobbes’ are morally acceptable and “universally beneficial.” Published anonymously in 1704, Swift utilizes a subplot in A Tale of a Tub by introducing three brothers as delineations of the Protestant, Calvinist, and Catholic Churches when given a garment they are told not to alter by their father’s will. Peter’s individualism is highlighted through his representation of the Catholic Church and their false interpretation(s) of theology, ultimately acting as a distraction from Thomas Hobbes’ fashionable ideas in forgoing authority and power of the government, or the father’s will, fifty years post English Civil War and publication of Leviathan. As a result, Peter’s Hobbesian-like characterization undermines Catholicism, making A Tale of a Tub a satire of eighteenth-century politics and religion amid the maelstrom of conflict that Swift had lived through.

Swift exemplifies techniques of comicality at the outset when critically engaging a traditional sea-faring practice, conducted by sailors when oceanic creatures harmed a ship and its crew. Throwing wooden tubs into the Atlantic Ocean was common practice for sailors in New England during the sixteenth century. Sailors out of New Bedford, Massachusetts, took tub throwing as an art once sailors around Britain discovered how it could distract undiscovered sea creatures from damaging vessels. The early days of sea-faring were dangerous because sailors were not fully aware of the sea and its lurking darkness. Thus, sailors invented and adopted tub throwing in hopes of deterring monsters from the deep they assumed existed. William Pulleyn writes about this practice in the Etymological Companion:

Vessels are surrounded with whales. When this is the case, it is usual to throw out a tub in order to divert their attention. Their attention being drawn, every sail is hoisted, and the vessel pursues its course to its destination. Hence came the saying, “Throwing a Tub to the Whale!”

Tubs were originally invented in the late fifteen hundreds out of stone and concrete-like materials. Captains wanted tubs in their quarters, but the tub’s heaviness caused the vessel to take on water. To ensure ships did not sink, sailors threw the heavy object into the sea and brought wooden tubs aboard instead. Still, tubs were not used by the captain, so it was thrown overboard, among other unwanted materials; they accidently discovered that this action caused whales to become distracted by this unknown object in their habitat. The tub deterred whales, and other massive sea creatures, from bumping into the vessel or eating the daily catch. Tub throwing procedures cannot be accurately pinpointed by historians. Its earliest sign in writing appeared during the early sixteenth-century in England when critics and writers allegorically incorporated the tub throwing practice to distract readers and authority figures from obscene opinions on political and religious topics. Frederick Marryat’s A Diary in America suggests Britain purposefully combined these topics for purposes of distraction. He writes, “The great cause of this increase of hostility against us is the democratical party having come into power, and who consider it necessary to excite animosity against this country.” The animosity and passive aggressiveness it created prompted an allegory to be prominent during the seventeenth century when Ben Jonson, a Renaissance and Restoration playwright, wrote A Tale of a Tub. 

Swift used Jonson’s title from his play, A Tale of a Tub, to emphasize how the purpose and nomenclature of ‘tub’ is utilized for distraction; Jonson’s play portrayed distraction as a technique to depict an event which disguised Inigo Jones, the subject of the play, as the antagonist. The play includes four suitors pursuing Audrey Turfe, an eligible bachelorette. Miss Turfe’s chances of marriage are destroyed once her father, the constable, becomes a foil and middleman for his daughter. He manipulates both Miss Turfe and three bachelors by distorting conversations and events, leaving Miss Turfe a virgin and unmarried. As a result, Jonson’s play represents a “cock and bull” idiom against marriage procedures in England during this time. The Constable’s false depiction of the suitors represents how his manipulative diction distracted Miss Turfe from the truth of her potential spouse. Jonson continues and says the play is mocking Inigo Jones, an architect in seventeenth-century England who drew plans for castles, common city areas, and residential housing. At one point in their careers, Jonson and Jones were colleagues, but their cordial relationship ended when Jones began crediting himself for Jonson’s original prop designs in the play called The Alchemist. Jonson responded by calling Jones an “in-and-in Medlay” and uses the Constable as the representation and subject of distraction away from Jones’ petty thievery and lies. Readers are distracted by the Constable’s actions which are intended to resemble and reveal those of Jones and slyly stab him in the back. The satirical appendages and techniques of distraction Jonson employs in A Tale of a Tub led Swift to plagiarize the title sixty-four years later.

Swift takes Jonson’s means of distraction and then incorporates Sebastian Brant’s definition of distraction in “The Ship of Fools” as the underlying attempt to overthrow or destroy a hypothetical organization or institution. Brant translates and interprets “Book IV” of Plato’s Republic as an allegory for the original tub-throwing practice. Through Plato, Brant intends to show readers how politics and religion can be best understood around the context of a hypothetical ship. “The ship represents the state,” he writes, “and its captain and crew attempt to fight over its possession.” The passage projects a captain and crew attempting to navigate and find a land of prosperity. Brant originally translates Plato’s passage as pleasant, but this quickly vanishes when the crew takes a forceful turn, literally, when they falsely misinterpret their maps and steer the ship towards violent waves. Brant’s ideas from Plato’s work reveal the crew’s narcissistic traits work in conjunction with Swift’s work, A Tale of a Tub. Swift tells of three brothers altering their inheritances by manipulating their father’s will, or the ship. The brother’s fabrications of their father’s will were done to accommodate their fleshly desires by fitting in with social and fashion trends. Swift writes, “Nor did anything want to render it a complete remedy, only that the unfortunate happened to die in the performance.” Their disobedience is the primary reason why their family unit fell. The brother’s actions in changing the will represents Plato’s hypothetical crew overthrowing the ship and how organized structures fall away when rules and belief systems are neglected. Governmental-type systems, which are not grounded, will fall like Plato and Swift say in their allegories. The incorporation of Brant’s piece, alongside that of Jonson, carries Swift’s title into completion. Swift’s title now becomes a vessel for describing how the three brothers in Swift’s Tub overthrew their family unit/ship, or the father’s will. 

“Section Two” of Swift’s A Tale of a Tub allows readers to understand the foundation of the work by describing an anonymous, bedridden father’s will and the sum of inheritances his three sons will receive. The brothers have no financial worth in the father’s estate, rather three coats which contain righteous and virtuous characteristics upon maturity and spiritual growth. The father describes the coats as “one is that with good wearing they will last you fresh and sound as long as you live; the other is that they will grow in the same proportion with your bodies, lengthening and widening of themselves, so as to be always fit.” Acquired inheritances in eighteenth-century England meant stocks and bonds, the estate, family values, and overall welfare and legacy. J.H. Plumb writes, “wealth meant everything but emotional attachment to things unseen. A family’s heritage is at stake when the primary stakeholder dies. Wealth meant power: power was wealth and wealth was power.” To break this stereotype, the father in Swift’s A Tale of a Tub gives his sons coats, extending a metaphor concerning the Heavenly fortunes and rewards the brothers can receive when obeying their father’s will. Even though the coats will grow with the men, if they physically alter their new possessions, spiritual destruction and damnation may occur. This threat is the last statement the brothers hear from their father, and they will live to attempt to honor him and his dying wish. 

After seven years, the brothers had kept their outward layers in upright presentational standards until they were ready for marriage. “The Duchess d’ Argent, Madame de Grande Titres, and the Countess d’Orgueil” were the first women to find the brothers marriageable candidates and providers for their potential family. These women had sacred reputations, but their social standing was used to manipulate the brothers to produce inappropriate and immature behavior: “writ, rallied, sung, slept, snuff, fought, and drank.” If these respectable women partook of this behavior, the brothers would do the same, believing women wanted eligible bachelors to commit acts of worldliness. Swift depicts their actions as careless– he does so as a segue in presenting what Englishmen did in Britain like attending chocolate houses, a symbol of class and disgrace. Marcy Norton writes that “[c]hocolate houses were becoming sophisticated and unique to Britain. Many of those that attended were well-known politicians, slummy college students, and inexperienced writers from Drury Lane.” Chocolate houses became trendy destinations for travelers to visit and a gathering place for working-class Englishmen to spend their evening and participate in gluttony. Swift shows readers how the brothers used chocolate houses to meet women and include themselves in worthless banter about work, clergymen, and Parliament with highly regarded political figures. Most of these political leaders “constantly attended those Committees of Senators who are silent in the House and are loud in the coffee-house; where they nightly adjourn to chew the end of politics and are with a ring of disciples who lie in wait to catch their droppings.” The authority figures slowly encouraged the brothers to pursue worldly wealth by forsaking their father’s will, Christian values, and legacy. 

The brothers disregarded the political figure’s suggestions until a pagan, idol-worshiping denomination visited England, turning the brothers to accept false Christian doctrines and the interconnection of outward appearances being an inward reflection of the soul, “dressing the atmosphere.” The brothers bought into the sect’s beliefs and began worshiping a golden goose with shiny embellishments; the goose’s pleasurable features intrigued the three brothers because it “held a subaltern divinity or deus minorum gentium. At his left, beneath the altar, Hell seemed to open, and catch at the animals the idol was creating.” The left wing holds its deities and carries the greatest value– lavish clothing. The pagan sect markets with clothing by hypothetically dressing their ideas about the world and faith with foreign fabrics to entice new followers. Connecting the brother’s eighteenth-century world helped them believe that England clothes itself in “lace, fine-faced green, silk, or water-tabby.” The sect’s bold and assumed statement(s) brought the brothers into a state of denial, saying “man himself is a micro-coat.” Swift brings the sect into being, hoping the brothers adhere and follow the father’s will and desires. At first, the brothers showed signs of promise, but this did not last for long because they are not grounded in faith, ultimately succumbing to other false teachings. 

Peter’s domineering nature as an authoritative figure over the will became noticeable when shoulder-knots grew in popularity; his stature gave him power, though the will defeats him when future trends do not accommodate its requirements. The newest fad welcomed and strongly enforced sewing shoulder-knots and pads onto Englishmen’s coats for decorative attractiveness, but shoulder-knots nor pads were written in the father’s will. Peter, the eldest brother, then turned to the will in search of shoulder embellishments. Seeing that the addition did not comply with their father’s wishes, Peter attempted to find a way to go around and manipulate the will. He found that these fads did not appear in the will, so he tried to pull letters from other words, hoping it would make up ‘shoulder-knots’ and ‘pads.’ To his demise, the only letter he ceased to find was ‘k.’ Peter excuses the loss of the single letter, saying, “K was a modern illegitimate letter unknown to the learned ages, nor anywhere to be found in the ancient manuscripts; but that from henceforward he would take care it should be writ with a C.” Swift continues and says, “Peter had the power to make and add certain clauses for public emolument, though not deducible, from the letter of the will.” Peter’s analysis of ‘k’ makes readers believe he either has poor orthographic skills or created an excuse to alter his coat. As a result, readers conclude Peter is giving into his earthly flesh– “our gentleman swaggered with as large and as flaunting ones as the best.” Aside from shoulder-knots, new fashion trends came into being “like gold lace, broom-sticks, and silver fringes.” Once “embroidered Indian figures” became culturally acceptable, the brothers “had no occasion to examine the will” for they believed examining the will many times before granted memory of their father’s words. The brothers unanimously agreed to “lock up their father’s will in a strong box brought out of Greece or Italy and trouble themselves no farther to examine it, but only refer to its authority whenever they thought fit.” Throwing away the will in a lock box indicates a loss of respect for both the will and their father. Thus, abandoning the will in pursuit of worldly desires is not only an idea their father rejected but a resemblance of Christianity in eighteenth-century England.

Swift first praises the middle brother, Martin (or Martin Luther, leader of the Protestant Reformation), and the youngest, Jack (representing Calvinism), and their abilities to refuse Peter’s suggestions to misinterpret the will and alter their coats. Martin is appreciated by Swift when he shows outward reverence to conservative values, specifically sola scriptura, a Lutheran tradition. The Latin phrase is notably translated in church conversations when discussing the Bible as the primary source of authority. Its prefix, sola, means no one can change Scripture in any way they see fit. “Section IX” of A Tale of a Tub suggests that Martin practices sola scriptura when placed in contact with Peter and/or pieces of writing that counteracts this belief. Swift writes, “And, first, with relation to the mind or understanding, ’tis manifest what mighty advantages fiction has over truth; and the reason is just at our elbow.” When adhering to sola scriptura, Martin can effectively analyze truth over lies once Peter brings fashion trends that contradict the father’s will. Dedication to the Bible is the ultimate factor from succumbing to Peter’s impulsivity to alter their father’s gifted coats. Martin is a lot like Jack who shares similarities to reformed Calvinists and follows sola scriptura. Swift says, “Jack is a person whose intellectuals were not overturned and his brain hath not shaken out of its natural position.” Swift wants readers to acknowledge Jack for his intellectualistic qualities and love for Biblical academia. Jack’s consistent need to research and grow in knowledge is presented by his refusal to change his coat. He carefully studies the will like he does the Bible or literature, giving him the ability to determine what is true. However, Jack’s conscientious qualities are mocked by Swift who believes reading the will in excessive amounts is detrimental. Researching for personal purposes is useful and important for growth, but when Jack continues reading the same piece of writing on multiple occasions, it loses its intrinsic value once its extrinsic purposes have been exhaustively examined. Anthony Gill believes “any materialistic good can lose value when it is overused on daily occasions.” Reading and studying the Bible should be habitual in a Christian’s walk with Christ, but Swift tells readers that Martin’s and Jack’s study of the will–Scripture– became problematic. They take the will too seriously, locking the document in a lock box because their examinations were repetitive in reverting back to the will for every trend. Hiding the will away was the root cause for harmful and dangerous misinterpretations, creating a space for Peter to alter his coat. 

Swift now says Peter’s forgoing of the will and coat alterations reflects Roman Catholicism in eighteenth-century England, which sought to manipulate church members and Scripture. He says Peter is a mock representation of the Catholic Church. Peter is the brother who initially gained absolute control over the will once the pagan goose sect grew in popularity. Peter originally believed that being the eldest gave him authority to exercise power, a problematic picture Swift paints by comparing Peter to religious figures in the “high Church” that gained control solely based on age, superiority, and leadership skills. Peter’s first step into power was exemplified during the orthographic predicament when differentiating between the letter ‘c’ and ‘k,’ and he continues doing the same practice when fringes became widely popular. Swift says, Peter is envisioned “for his erudition, who was well skilled in criticism, has found in a certain author, which he said should be nameless, that the same word, which in the will is called fringe.” Fringes are acceptable, to Peter, because he declared it so. Peter’s power was granted on behalf of Swift for the purpose in portraying him as a symbol of Catholicism, a Christian sect that survives on manipulation of its member’s payment of penance, contrition, and indulgence(s). Jordan Fiore writes that: 

Swift deems Peter as Saint Peter, a supposed key holder of heaven, disciple of Christ, and loose representation of the Pope in the Catholic Church. Peter is given religious pride by Swift to properly illustrate his ability to remain in power over the coats and, what he believed, was ultimate authority over the will, or Scripture.

The depiction of Peter Swift accurately represents how the Catholic Church’s relationship with Scripture was based on their misinterpretations by the Pope, or the ultimate power that mediates between members of the Church and the Word. Swift uses Peter and the Pope interchangeably, telling readers that Peter using the will to alter his coat represents the Pope’s actions in wrongfully interpreting Scripture for personal gain. As Leo Damrosch argues, “Peter acts as an overarching embodiment of the Pope, both parties who receive personal gain in turn.” While Swift’s connection is valid and appropriate for discussion, his intention was to interject the Catholic Church’s false presentation of the afterlife once Peter assumes that altering their coats will gain them a higher place in Heaven. Swift writes, “The natural and the celestial suit, which were the body and soul: that the soul was the outward, and the body the inward…This last they proved by Scripture, because in them we live, and move, and have our being.” The coats are an integral part in their lives and have become their future; rather than putting hope in the will, Peter believes his coat grants him everlasting life. Swift’s presentation of Peter not only exposes the Catholic Church but also suggests that he is the allegorical representation of Thomas Hobbes, the subject of distraction in Tub– revealing his manipulative attempts in Leviathan to propose revolution and abolishment of absolute power through the monarchy. Thus, Swift subtly tells readers Hobbes is masquerading through Peter’s character. Moving forward, Swift transitions by attacking Hobbes, counteracting tactics Hobbes proposed that would supposedly help England post English Civil War. 

Before Swift’s time in the restorative government of Charles II, war broke out; Charles II’s father, Charles I, and Parliament conflicted with ideas concerning religion, government, distribution of wealth, and common welfare of English in the late Renaissance Period, creating tensions that tied to the throne and a coming revolution led by Oliver Cromwell. Charles I believed in absolute power, or the monarchy remaining in complete control over the country and influence in the House of Commons and Parliament. In the seventeenth-century, monarchical stature did not cause Englishmen to question or doubt this organized patriarchal structure until Cromwell. To describe the importance of absolute power, Charles I said, “Parliaments are altogether in my power…As I find the fruits of them good or evil, they are to continue or not to be.” Despite Charles I’s beliefs, monarchical ideas faded away in 1641 when three kingdoms– Scotland, Ireland, and Britain– charged Charles I with treason upon refusal to back down from his outlandish charges against the Commonwealth. His declarations and decrees were not problematic, rather falsely manipulated and challenged by local politician and radical named Oliver Cromwell. Cromwell appealed to young intellectuals, encouraging them to stand against their country and fight for liberty, freedom, and complete control over governmental powers. While the Tories still supported Charles I, the Whigs in the United Kingdoms of Britain led the beheading of Charles I. His death led Cromwell to profess himself as the overarching figurehead in England, not the king. Cromwell’s individualized power then reflected Thomas Hobbes’ beliefs in portraying the importance of dictators rallying peoples and bringing peace after a time of chaos. Even though Cromwell initially caused the English government to fall, he peacefully reinstated himself as the power he originally wanted to eliminate. As David Lockwood points out, “Hobbes wrote Leviathan in 1651 to guarantee support over Oliver Cromwell and his actions to, nonetheless, take over the government for himself. These ideas were blatantly stated in Leviathan and its title.” The nomenclature of “leviathan” reminds readers of Swift’s original intent to relay satirical appendages through its title, and Hobbes does the same and uses this title to underline the use of “leviathan” in Hebrew literature as a category of mythical sea monsters. With this in mind, Hobbes takes this broad definition and compares hypothetical monstrous creatures to the English government during the English Civil War. The English Civil War was the United Kingdom’s means and excuse to exercise illegal democratic power by removing their king from the throne, replacing him with a radical, representing Hobbes’ monster-like description in controlling from an individualized standpoint. Thus, Swift tries to distract readers from Hobbes’ support of anti-government in Leviathan, ensuring that the allegorical ship of state can remain politically balanced and intact. 

Thomas Hobbes’ manipulative terminologies in Leviathan are cordially used to promote patriotism in England; Swift castigates Hobbes’ language by condemning his problematic consideration for eliminating government in a post-English Civil War society. Any form or structure of government is needed in society, regardless of whether constituents like the present administration. However, Hobbes challenges Charles I’s power over England– he supported Cromwell’s revolution in removing the monarch, replacing him with a “principle sovereign ruler” he believed was Cromwell. Hobbes’ support for Cromwell was from his interest in authoritative individuals that courageously took a stand for their country, revealing an overarching sense of patriotism. Swift includes Hobbes’ notion of sovereignty by portraying Peter as a representation of domination and superiority over his two younger brothers, Martin and Jack. Peter fulfills this leadership role by assuming absolute control over the father’s will and altering his coat according to the rising clothing trends. Peter’s assumed position granted him king-like power. Swift says Peter was “amusing himself to take and lose towns, beat armies and be beaten, drive princes out of their dominions; freight children from the bread and butter; burn, lay waste, plunder, dragoon, massacre subject and stranger, friend and foe, male and female.” Swift mentions these possibilities as a projection of what Peter overdramatically believes his title of will-keeper and coat alterer entail. Peter now becomes the driving force of encouraging wickedness when he pushes his brothers to change their coat’s physical appearance.

Swift carries this idea further in hopes of equating Peter to Hobbes’ sovereign ruler’s hidden manipulative agenda. A sovereign ruler or benevolent dictator, to Hobbes, is derivative upon a traditionalists philosophy in getting peoples to collectively consent to actively pursuing an idealized representation of what a good citizen should exhibit. In other words, Hobbes wants a democratic country where the people rule, and the sovereign power mediates or manipulates the people by suggesting ideas they believe are necessary for the present state. He writes, “For the Lawes of Nature…without the terrour of some Power, to cause them to be observed, are contrary to our naturall Passions, that carry us to Partiality, Pride, Revenge, and the like.” This overarching power will be the driving force that makes their subjects want to live exemplary lives within the confines of the kingdom and abroad. Hobbes persists on how “an individual acknowledgment towards his or her obligation to the peaceful liberties of others on an equal basis to his own will promote good intentions and voluntary obedience towards good actions.” When an ideal sovereign ruler comes to power, England will refuse to deviate from their moral obligations because they will be held accountable by the individual power. He declares, “for if they can doe it by their given Authority, they can by their own Authority give judgment that the debt is due, which is as much as to be Judge in their own Cause.” The unrealistic secular power, Hobbes suggests, will presumably instill peace and decrease crime and wickedness. Peace will allow Hobbes’ ideal sovereign ruler to wrongfully manipulate and control its people like Peter does in Swift’s Tale, pushing his brothers to alter their coats. 

Oliver Cromwell believed revolution was necessary for England. In support of Cromwell, Hobbes wrote Leviathan to elevate him. Leviathan gained immediate popularity after it was published in 1651. Hobbes’ original purpose in Leviathan was to openly ally with Cromwell. Cromwell believed Charles I was not destined for the throne, nor was he capable of holding absolute power. As J. H. Brunner writes, “Charles I was beheaded for treason in 1649 for marrying a Catholic sympathizer, attempting to dissolve Parliament, made decisions with Parliament interfering, and protested political oppression.” Though Charles I’s actions showed no signs of treachery, according to Brunner, Cromwell manipulated the United Kingdoms of Britain when joining the Parliamentarians during the second English Civil War to trust Charles was wanting to eliminate all power given to the people. Cromwell and his army fought and won against the Royal King Forces at Marston Moor and Naseby within a year which forced Charles I to surrender and be tried for treason. As a result of this victory, Hobbes writes Leviathan nine years post-English Civil War and two years prior to Cromwell’s reign, reminding Englishman of the War’s impact and Cromwell’s domineering characteristics. For nine years, Cromwell remained in control of the English Commonwealth until his death in 1658. Charles II then restored the throne in 1660, killed Cromwell and his son, Richard, for treason, and fought against Leviathan’s statements regarding his father, Charles I, and revolutions against monarchs. Aside from the throne, Charles II also restored theater and the humanities, bringing back literature from the Renaissance Period and leading sophisticated writers in the eighteenth-century to satirically condemn past historical events like the English Civil War with heightened language. As a result, Swift honors Charles II’s subtle request and writes A Tale of a Tub with the intent to praise politics, religion, and the throne, which distracts readers from Hobbes’ notion of deliberately removing kings and other principalities.

Responding to Hobbes’ “dangerous doctrines,” Swift degrades Leviathan by presenting an argument in Tub, “seeking to recall them to sanity,” to distract Englishmen with Peter’s Hobbesian projection when he contracts a vapor that causes him to become a manipulative dictator and alter his coat. Swift’s intention with Tub was to help readers acknowledge Leviathan as problematic and highly treasonous. As Swift says, “Hobbes clearly proves that every creature lives in a state of war by nature.” The struggle between man and nature is fundamentally highlighted in Leviathan as a conflict that arises when constituents refuse to obey governmental powers. Their act of rebellion is generally created when they become uneasily independent by taking laissez-faire measures and democracy to the extreme. Swift uses “Section IX” in A Tale of a Tub by stating an example of Peter’s means in exercising this power from a political standpoint, hoping to debunk Hobbes’ idea of individualized power. J.H. Plumb writes, “[politics] was, of course, extremely intimate and inbred and this, as well as the intrigue for place and the control of influence.” Politics in seventeenth-century English society was held in high regard, and it became the most effective means in wrongfully assuming power as seen through Cromwell’s successful removal of Charles I. Seeing that politics were the perfect avenue for easy manipulation, Hobbes sought to defend Cromwell and his revolution against Charles I, believing this cause was necessary and an ideal example of exercising power over a large group of people. Monicka Patterson-Tutschka writes, “Hobbes’ politically subversive arguments are important. Rights might, according to Hobbes, subvert the religious opinions and legalize Cromwell’s and the Rump’s rise.”

Hobbes supported Cromwell’s pro-revolutionary ideas as beneficial and productive because it would shake and disrupt the metaphorical ship he believed must be questioned. Swift opens the section with a restatement of how Peter altered his coat, representing the desire to take over the ship, or the father’s will. Peter’s sudden and urgent need to disobey their father is rebellion, but it aligns with Hobbes’ recurring ideas regarding an authoritative, individualistic figure taking control over a group of peoples. Sparking rebellion for productive purposes is a God-given right, as Swift suggests, though he says there are those who suggest revolution solely based on narcissism and self-indulgence. He says, “this madness [has] been the parent of all those mighty revolutions that have happened in empire, in philosophy, and in religion.” Swift does not condemn advocating for vindication. He does, however, believe Hobbes is revealing the premise behind the beginnings of revolution as it reflects a psychological state of the individualistic authority figure. He claims, “For the brain, in its natural position and state of serenity, disposeth its owner to pass his life in the common forms, without any thought of subduing multitudes to his own power, his reasons, or his visions.” The brain is then “troubled and overspread by vapors ascending from the lower faculties to water the invention and render it fruitful.” Hobbes’ Leviathan is causing a chemical reaction/imbalance when vapors of secularism enter the brain. To Swift, these vapors are on par with hazardous and deadly gasses religious institutions create.

The power these institutions hold paralyzes and transforms the brain when doctrines of theology are misinterpreted much like the Catholic Church – Swift subtly includes this detail when Peter falsifies the will which reveals how the Church intentionally manipulates the Bible for personal gain. A Tale of a Tub refers to these vapors once Peter initially contracted them after the goose sect was introduced in England. The fall of religious values stemmed from pagan sects proposing the complete alteration of oneself, encouraging Englishmen like Peter to physically alter his outward garment, then revealing how his “brain hath undergone an unlucky shake.” Peter was the first and only brother to experience the power of these vapors, and Swift uses Peter as a guinea pig to exemplify how Hobbes’ ideas do not play out productively in everyday life through a satirical plot that distracts readers away from Hobbes. At the closing of Swift’s argument, he provides readers with a threat: “do not subscribe to this doctrine, they will tie you fast, call you mind, and feed you with bread and water.” Being on guard against political and religious falseness will protect and aid Englishmen from whatever harmful doctrines or ideas come their way. The brain is a “very delicate point to cut,” and this organ cannot interfere with outside factors which could and would cause gullibility to arise and manipulate the five senses. Hobbes’ Leviathan wrongfully manipulated England into accepting authoritative powers that held a revolt to remove their king, ultimately describing how their brains were psychologically impacted by these vapors Hobbes initially provided Englishmen with after the English Civil War. 

Swift’s analysis of Peter’s individualistic power demonstrates similar characteristics to Oliver Cromwell, a dictator supported by Thomas Hobbes in Leviathan. Though Swift does not blatantly tell readers this connection, he does so in the way of an allegory to distract readers from how the brother’s representation of the Protestant, Calvinist, and Catholic Churches altered theology. As a result, Swift adheres to satirical diction to debunk secular leaders, the Catholic Church, and other churchmen throughout Britain.

Print