Swifts Great Palimpsest Intertextuality and Travel Literature in GT

Center for Latin American and Caribbean Studies, University of Michigan,
Ann Arbor
SWIFT'S GREAT PALIMPSEST: INTERTEXTUALITY AND TRAVEL LITERATURE IN "GULLIVERS

TRAVELS"
Author(s): Peter Wagner
Source: Dispositio, Vol. 17, No. 42/43, CROSSING THE ATLANTIC: TRAVEL LITERATURE AND
THE PERCEPTION OF THE OTHER (1992), pp. 107-132
Published by: Center for Latin American and Caribbean Studies, University of Michigan, Ann
Arbor
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41491689
Accessed: 09-04-2015 16:48 UTC
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Center for Latin American and Caribbean Studies, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor is collaborating with JSTOR to
digitize, preserve and extend access to Dispositio.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 210.212.129.125 on Thu, 09 Apr 2015 16:48:41 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Vol.XVII,Nos.42-43,
Dispositio pp.107-132
©DepartmentofRomance ofMichigan
University
Languages,
SWIFT'S GREAT PALIMPSEST:

INTERTEXTUALITY AND TRAVEL LITERATURE IN
GULLIVERS TRAVEIS
Peter Wagner
Eichstätt
KatholischeUniversität
On September29th, 1725, shortlyaftercompletingthe manuscriptof

Gulliver'sTravels(hereinafter
GT), Swiftwrotea letterto his friendAlexander
Pope. In this quoteddocumenttheDean declareshisintensehatredof
frequently
all man-madesystemsand organizationsand also commentson theaims of his
writingin general,and of GT in particular:
The chiefendI proposeto myselfinall mylaboris to vextheworld

ratherthendivertit ... I have got MaterialsTowards a Treatis
provingthefalsityofthatDefinitionanimalrationale; and to show
it should be rationiscapax. Upon this great foundationof
Misanthropy(thoughnotTimonsmanner)The wholebuildingof
myTravellsis erected:And I neverwillhavepeace of mindtillall
honestmenare of myOpinion. (1965a, 102-03)
GiventhedelightSwifttook in roleplaying,evenin his correspondence(Harth

1985,115,121),one wonderswhereand whenhiswordscan be takenat theirface
value.Ifhewas seriousinthisinstance1
hewouldbe delightedto see thathisbook
continuesto vex both generalreadersand academics. It seemsthatthegames
Swiftplays in GT, withdiscourseas well as withthereader,make thereading
108 PETERWAGNER
process a voyage itselfthat draws the traveller/reader into an "endless and

inescapabletextuality" (Holly 1979,139).Fromtheverybeginning, thebook has
createddifficulties fortaxonomiststryingto place it in neat categories(Novak
1990, 30-31; Real/Vienken1984, 7-34; Schnackertz1982, 45-46; Williams
1970).Ifcriticsagreeat all about thegenreof GT, theystressitscomplexity and
deliberateminglingof various formsof discourse. MaximillianNovak has
describedGT as "at once a pure (if tonguein cheek) imaginaryvoyage ... a
journey to utopia and dystopia; a spiritual autobiography;a picaresque
narrative;and a parodyofall oftheseforms"(1990,30), and Louise Barnettadds
twofurther "subgenre[s]offictive travelnarrative,"i.e.,the"philosophicaltaleà
la Candide, [and the] real-seemingadventureà la Cyranode Bergerac" (1990,
232). Over thecenturies,manycriticshave triedto come to termswithSwift's
recalcitranttext.Invariably,theireffortsto accomodate GT in a traditional
genreor categoryended in frustration - or in an extensionof existinggenres.
Thus, in 1734,Nicolas LengletDu Fresnoyput GT in his fourteenth and last
categoryforfiction,"romans diversqui ne se rapportentà aucune des classes
précédentes,"whileNorthropFrye,in 1957,'rediscovered'two genresforGT
whichhe terms"anatomy" and "Menippean satire"(Gove 1961,20-25; Frye
1957; Novak 1990,25-26; 30-35). Indeed,the historyof the receptionof GT
appearsto be a "seriesof . . . genredecisionsthatattemptto cope withthetext's
polyvalenceand indeterminacy" byforcingitintoartificialgenresthatpromise
to confercoherenceand stabilitybut, ultimately,prove to be what Gérard
Genettetermed"faussesfenêtres"[blindwindows](Barnett1990,232; Genette
1979,49).
Genette'scritiqueof the deformingpower of literarytaxonomy,of the
systematizing and "fearfulsymmetries"of literarycriticismin the face of
diversity(1979,50), isjust one exampleofrecent,postmodern,attemptsto clear
thewayfordiscussionsoftheundeniableintertextual and intermedial natureof
textsand genres.WhileGenette,ina numberofpainstakinganalyses,has shown
thatthereis no "naked text" and thateveryliterarytextincludesor refersto
"architexts,""hypotexts,"and "paratexts"(1979, 1982,1987),JacquesDerrida
has arguedconvincingly that"everytextparticipatesin one or severalgenres,
there is no genre-lesstext; there is always a genre and genres,yet such
participationneveramountsto belonging"(1981, 65). This is not theplace to
providea surveyofthedevelopmentand thestateofaffairsin thefertilefieldof
intertextuality.2Sufficeitto saythatinthewakeofrecentcriticaltheoriesGT has
been subjectedto new approachesstressingthecomplexityof itstexture(Swift
1986,xvi),theneedto considerthetextin itscontexts,and Swift'sobviousplay
with reader expectationsin what emergesas an "accretinggenericor class
parody"(Hunter1990,67, 69).
GiventhefactthatSwift'ssatiricalstrategy, bothin hisproseand poetry,
consistsinmingling and dismantling genres, scholars nowgenerally concurthata
singlegenre cannot be a sufficient label for GT (Smith 1990, 19-21). In his
reader-response approach, Robert W. Uphaus even rejectsthe idea of genre
altogether, claiming that GT "is not writtenwith any one effectin mind,other
SWIFTSGREATPALIMPSEST 109
than to violate the reader's expectationsof coherent,rationallyformulable

meaning"(1979, 17-18). Nevertheless, recentclosereadingsofSwift's"Lucianic
mock-traveller's tale" (Swift,1986,xvi) revealtravelliteratureto be themajor
genre(or "architext")whose formsand styles("hypotexts")are consistently
aped, imitated,parodied,and, finally,subverted.Thus BreanHammondargues
thatin GT "thediscoursehas disguiseditselfas a travelbook" (1988, 105)while
Paul Goetsch maintainsthat "in the sequence of Gulliver's voyages Swift
subvertsthediscourseoflinguistic colonialism"(Goetsch 1988,351). Passmann
believesthatboththeefficacy and thefunctioning ofSwift'ssatiredependon his
sophisticateduse of authenticand fictionaltravelaccounts (1987, 352); and
FrederickN. Smith,in an afterwordto a numberof different readingsof the
book,concludesthat"underthebroad canopyofthetravelogue,Swiftdiscovers
a remarkablenumberof othergenres"(1990, 253).
My effort(in partII) to deal withthesubtlewaysin whichtheparatextof
GT (i.e., thefrontispiece, thetitles,and the lettersbeforethe main textwhich
constitutea sort of preface [Krey 1969, 139]) simulatesand assails travel
literatureas a formof discourseis indebted,on theone hand,to GrantHolly's
pioneeringstudyof textuality in GT (1979), and, on theotherhand,to Gérard
Genette's analyses of intertextuality, particularlyhis recentexplorationof
"entrances"or accesses ( seuils) thatliterarytexts(in books) constructaround
themselvesin theformof a "paratext"(1987).3
Holly arguesthatthereare severalwaysin whichGT reflects"mapping,"
one of thesebeingembodiedin theverygraphicsof thebook, "in its size and
shape . . . the kinds of type,the table of contents,the layout of books and
chapters,headnotes,engravedscenesand designs,and of course,themaps and
diagrams" (1979, 149). I agree withHolly that,since GT is concernedwith
"techniquesofportraying significantstructures,"theseaspects"have everyright
to be consideredinan analysisoftheTravels"( 149). Focussingon theframing of
thebook, on whatGenettetermsthe"paratexte"or "péritexte"(1987, 10-11),I
shallattemptto showthatthe"frontmatter,"as one oftheeditorsofGT calls it
(Swift1970,vii),is verymuchpartofa deliberateSwifteanstrategy in whichthe
texteventuallydefamiliarizesitself.WhatI offerin thisarticleis a short(and, I
trust,guided)tourthrougha maze. The structure of GT suggeststhattheDean
requiredhisreadersto makethistouras a kindofentranceto themaintextofhis
masterpiece.I shalldemonstrate how Swiftluresthereaderintohislabyrinth by
gettingher/himinvolved in an intertextualgame in which a varietyof
"hypertexts"are continuallyrelatedto "architexts"or "hypotexts"(Genette
1982, 7-14) and thus constitutean ambiguous and highly sophisticated
palimpsest.
II
"
Despite thediscoveryin 1976of the "ArmaghGulliver (Swift'spersonal
copy of theeditionpublishedin 1726,containingcorrectionshe made himself)
110 PETERWAGNER
thereis stillno criticaleditionofan authorizedtextofGT. Meanwhile,theSwift

industry continuesdiscussingthereliability oftheextanttexts,Hans Hunfeld's
recent'discovery'being one of the more exhilaratingcontributionsin a truly
Swifteanspirit(Real/Vienken 1984, 16-18; 140-41 n.55-69; Hunfeld 1990,
179-212).
One of the reasons forthisdilemmais Swift'sstrategyof disguisingthe
authorshipofhis workbytakinggreatpains to "occult his own relationshipto
the Travels" (Holly 1979, 138). To some extent,the game of disguise and
metamorphosis Swiftplayedwithhispublishermirrorsthetextualstrategiesof
his book. Beforewe face the snaresof the actual textwe should perhapstake
cognizanceofthewaySwiftvirtually staged,and implicitly
problematized, such
issues as authorship/ownership, authenticity,and textual reliability.The
mysteriousstoryof the genesisof GT began on August 8th, 1726, when the
Londonbooksellerand printer BenjaminMottereceiveda letter.Deliveredbyan
anonymousmessenger, itwas evidentlycomposedbySwift,butprobablywritten
by John Gay and, to make thingseven more complicated,signed by one
"RichardSympson,"Gulliver'sallegedcousin."Sympson"offered Mottea part
ofthemanuscriptand asked fora feeof£200to theauthor(i.e., Gulliver),who
"intendstheprofitfortheuse of poor Seamen." A weeklater,afterMottehad
agreedto thepublicationoftheentirebook, he receivedtheoutstandingpartof
GT, "he knewnot fromwhence,nor fromwhom,dropp'd at his house in the
dark,froma Hackney-coach"(Swift1965a, 152-81; Treadwell1985,296-98).
WhenSwiftsaw a copyofthefirstedition,publishedon October28th,1726,he
was dissatisfied withthemanymisprints and thepublisher'salterations,which
Motte had made to tone down what he considereddangerouspassages. But
despitehisanger,Swiftdid notgetinpersonalcontactwithMotte;itwas Swift's
friendCharles Ford who, presumablyat the Dean's request,protestedat the
misprints and thechanges.The textualchangeswereretaineduntil1735,when
George FaulknerreprintedGT in Dublin, as volume3 of Swift'sWorks. It is
again tellingthatFaulknerneverreceiveda correctedversionof thebook- the
sourceof his editionremainsobscure(Swift1965b,xxiv-xxviii).
What is importantabout Swift'sshenanigansis notthefactthathe might
havebeenafraidoflegalprosecutionand wantedto protecthimselfas wellas his
publisher(Real/Vienken1984,23) or thathe loved mystification and, in this
instance,had his work stage itself,as it were (Fabian 1970, 421). In the
intertextualcontext of the book the text, with all its displacementsand
substitutions, beginswiththeauthor'sletterto his publisher.As a textthatis
"out of thebook" (and hence,in Genette'sterminology, an "epitext")but still
verymuchpart of the paratext(Genette 1987, 316), it anticipatesthe textual
strategyof Gulliver's"report,"fortheauthorpretendsthathis letter,actually
writtenby Gay, is fromthepen of RichardSympson.Swiftprobablychose the
namewithgood care: therewas a real RichardSympson,a publisherand editor
he gotto knowwhileworkingforSirWilliamTemple;but(and one can imagine
Swiftchucklingat the"coincidence")therewas also a fictitious CaptainWilliam
Sym[p]sonwhose A New Voyageto theEast Indiesappeared in 1715. There is

additionalironyin thesegameswithnamesand textsin thatSym[p]son'sbook
was plagiarizedfroman earliertravel-book - one of thepointsof theextensive
paratext of GT is of course to equate Gulliver with the pseudonymous
Sym[p]son,a liar and plagiarist.4
A futurecriticaleditionof GT oughtto containSwift's"forged"letterto
Motte,foritis inthisepitextthatSwiftintroducesa fictionalcharacterwho then
turnsup again in the paratext5(the letters)to vouchsafeforthe veracityand
honestyofGulliverand to continuetheintertextual gamewithsucharchitexts as
travelliteratureand autobiography.In addition,RichardSympson,we notice,
writesin thesame "plain" style(thatof Defoe and Puritanwriters)thatSwift
allots to Gulliver.When Swift,in 1727,wroteto theAbbé des Fontaines,who
had translatedGT intoFrench,he commentedon thereaderswhohad obviously
misunderstoodhis implicitcriticismof this establishedform of discourse.
Discussingthe"partisansofGulliver"who "numbera greatmanyamongstus,"
he told theAbbé,
you willno doubt be surprisedto learnthat[some] considerthis

ship's surgeon a solemn author, who never departs from
seriousness,who neverassumesa role,who neverprideshimself
upon possessingwit,and who is contentto communicateto the
public,in a simpleand artlessnarrative,theadventuresthathave
befallenhimand thethingsthathe has seen or heard duringhis
voyages. (Swift1970,271)
The complexityoftheletterto Motte- itsappropriationand subversionof
styleand authors,and itsrelationshipwiththeparatextand hypertext of GT -
demonstrates thegreatdemandsSwiftmakeson hisreaders.In his"selfconscious
sniping at the reader'spoise" (Rawson 1968,6), Swift,fromtheverybeginning,
appeals to thereader'scriticalcapacity.In fact,one mightsay thattheextreme
difficultiesSwiftdeliberatelyengineersin the"frontmatter"of GT (Mezciems
1982,46) are a condensedformof theirritations thatexpectus liketrapswhen
Gullivereventuallyseizestheword(Schnackertz1982,47).
It has been notedthatMotte,upon publishingGT in 1726,"could hardly
keeppace withthedemand"; in fact,he broughtout threeoctavo editionsin the
firstyear,followedby a duodecimoand anotheroctavo editionin 1727 (Swift
1965b,xxiii).As we open copies of thefirsteditionof GT, thefirstpartof the
paratextwe areconfronted seemsto be no morethana littlejoke.
with,a portrait,
Yet it is easily overlooked that picturesin literaryworks often"elucidate,
modify, and supplementthemeaningoftheverbaltext,"particularly iftheywere
subjectto theauthor'sapproval(Halsband 1985,83). SinceSwifttooka keenand
eveninstructing
criticalinterestin Gulliverillustrations, Mottewhichscenesto
engrave(Halsband 1985,86-87), one can assumethathe musthave been aware
oftheintermedial, ironic,relationsGulliver'sportraitestablisheswiththetexts
and authorsto whichit refers.
112 PETERWAGNER
In fact,the portraitin the Motte editionsexistsin two different states

(Teerink1963,193-94).The originalstate,whichappearsonlyinthefirstissueof
the firstedition(the "A-edition") of GT, containsthe inscription"Captain
Gulliver, ofRedriffAetat.suae 58" on a tabletfixedto a pedestalon whichthe
oval portraitrests(fig.1); whilethesecondstateoftheengraving (used intheAA
and В editionsof 1726) providesthe'autobiographical'information roundthe
oval frame,thetabletnowbearinga Latinepigraph(fig.2). The Faulkneredition
of 1735evendepictsa completely personand a newLatin"subscriptio"
different
on whatis now clearlyvisibleas a pedestal(fig.3). Withtheexceptionof Grant
Hollyand JennyMezciems,fewcriticshavediscernedthattheportraitis infacta
prime example of the way Swiftmakes signifying the subject of his book
(Halsband 1985,83-84; Mezciems1982,Holly 1979,149-50; Krey1969,39-42;
Lawry1968,217-22). Furthermore, althoughtheportraitshave been described
in bibliographicalstudiesof GT (Teerink1963,25, 193-94),thetellingwaysin
which they differhave not been sufficiently discussed. Disregardingthe
signifying evidenceof the difference, Holly, forinstance,has arguedthat "to
discussthe different imagesof 'Lemuel Gulliver'whichappeared in the early
editionsoftheTravelswouldrequireonlythatI changethedetailsofmyanalysis,
not its conclusions" (149 n.23). Yet the frontispieces play with,and reveal,
Gulliver'sidentity, mostobviouslyof coursebecause theeditionsof 1726and
1735showdifferent "persons,"and moresubtlyinthehiddenclueswe are given
in theversionsof theportraitthatappear in theMotteeditions.And theymay
evenhintat therealauthor,forthecaptain'sfaceis notunlikethatofSwift,while
his age (58) was preciselySwift'sage at the time (Halsband 1985, 83-84;
Mezciems1982,51-53).
What we see in the firstversionof the engraving(fig. 1) is a traditional
'portrait'of a person that is placed on a pedestal that seems to provide
biographicalinformation about thepersondepicted.In thesecondstate(fig.2),
these'facts'abouttheauthorarecontainedintheoval frameofthepicture,while
an unidentified Latin versenow appears on thepedestal.In both statesof the
portrait,thenameis mirrored, as itwere,in thetitle-pagefacingtheengraving.
JennyMezciems has pointed out that the figure"faces right(towards the
narrative)and thedirectionmaysuggestrectitude, honesty,or any otherright-
facingqualities" (1982, 49). The "biographical"text,in the frameand on the
pedestal,again simulatesauthenticity. The word"Redriff'would have dupeda
gulliblereader,foritwas a realplace (today'sRotherhithe nearLondon). Thus
the wordingof the frame/pedestal containsa tellingmixtureof information
(Gulliver'sname,age, and hometown)thatseemsto be truebecausesomeofthe
information Thisis thefirstinstance,ifwe excepttheletterto Motte,
is verifiable.
whereSwiftcastsGulliveras a swindlerwho,inthemannerofLucian's traveller
in the True Stories, tells all sorts of lies in the most plausible manner
(Real/Vienken1984,36).
Ifweconsiderthelargercontextofsuchfrontispieces withinGT's parodyof
travelaccounts,the satiricfunctionof Gulliver'sportraitemergeseven more
SWIFT'SGREATPALIMPSEST 113
Figure1
Frontispiece(FirstState)and title-pageforVolume I, Motte'sedition,London,

1726.
114 PETERWAGNER
Figure2
Frontispiece(Second State) and title-pagefor Volume I, Motte's edition,

London, 1726.
Figure3
Frontispieceand title-pagefor Volume III of Faulkner's edition of Swift's

Works, Dublin, 1735.
116 PETERWAGNER
Figure4
FrontispieceofSwiftand title-pageforVolumeI ofFaulkner'seditionofSwift's

Works,Dublin, 1735.
forcefully.Comparingboththeportraitand theentire"frontmatter"of GT to
earlier prototypesof the fictionaltravellers,JennyMezciems has argued
convincingly thatthefigurewe see intheportrait"mightbe thatofHythlodaeus
or of Panurge,"forGulliver'spictorialportraithas striking similaritieswiththe
verbal portraitsof the "heroes" we find in More's Utopia and Rabelais's
Pantagruel , both importantsources for Swift (Mezciems 1982, 48-50). In
addition, one may, and indeed one should, compare the portraitto the
frontispiece portraitof anotherdaringseafarer,Robinson Crusoe, whichhad
been publishedin 1719. Since such engravedportraitswerea standardpartof
seventeenth-century travel-books(Passmann 1987, 346), fromCaptain John
Smith'sreportscontainingengravedportraitsof himselfand of Pocahontas
(Smith1616and 1630)to thelaterworksofVincentLe Blanc and JeanBaptiste
Tavernier,6 Swiftagain appropriatesand explodesa techniqueofportraying by
carryingit to thepointwherethecarefulobserver/reader beginsto noticethe
problematicsofsignifying as such.Clearly,one ofthefunctions oftheimageis to
lend credibility to theauthor,who appearsvisuallyand verbally,and to create
the impressionof authenticityfor the page facing it and for the verbal
information to come (Halsband 1985,84; Mezciems 1982,49).
But the illusionof authenticity is just thesurfacelevel of theintermedial
relationsthe pictorialdiscourseof the engravingestablisheswiththe paratext
and hypertextof GT. Careful observers/readers will discover more in the
structureand textureof Gulliver's"portrait"whose authenticity seems to be
further strengthened by the presence of what, at firstglance, looks likefactual
evidence:inthetraditional, contemporary, manner names are added underneath
theengraving:"Sturtet SheppardSc." The factthatwe findtwonames(and the
letters"Sc" for'sculpiť ) indicatesthethorough-going division,whichemerged
inbook engravingduringthecourseoftheeighteenth century, betweenthework
ofthedesignerand thatoftheengraver,althoughsome engraversalso designed
theirown works(Wagner 1986, 11-12). The reference, in thiscase, is to John
Sturt(1658-1730), a well-knownengraverwho produced a numberof small
portraitsas frontispieces to books and providedthe frontispiece to the 1710
editionof Tale ofa Tub. He executedillustrations to manyof thereligiousand
artisticpublicationsof the time,includingan edition of Bunyan's Pilgrim's
Progress(1728). The othername presumablystandsforRobertSheppard(fl.
1725-1740),an engraverwho workedforbooksellersand who was especially
knownforhisportraitsofsovereignsand statesmeninRapin'sHistoryofEngland
(1732-1737). Sturt'snameinparticularwouldlendthebook an additionalairof
respectability.
The secondstateofthefrontispiece (fig.2) is intriguingbecause itspedestal
bears a Latin motto,"Compositumius, fasque animi,sanctosque recessus/
Mentis,etincoctumgenerosopectushonesto."The epigraphalso appearsinthe
newspaper advertisementin the London Daily Journal(28 October 1726)
announcingthepublicationof GT (Swift1980,vii). It is liftedfromthesecond
satire(11.73-74) of Persius'sSaturae.The Roman writerAulus PersiusFlaccus
118 PETERWAGNER
(A.D. 34-62), an iconoclastinhisownright,probablyappealed to Swiftbecause

he, too, opposed all artificeand exaggeratedstylein poetry,attackingthe
"literaryindustry"ofhisday and age (Morford1984,1- 25; Barr 1987,4). Like
Swift,Persiusbecameknownforhisbrilliantstyleand intertextual references
to
previousand contemporaryauthors(Jenkinson1980, 7; Barr 1987, 99). In
Persius'ssecondsatire,concernedwithissuesofmoralityand propersacrificeto
thegods, thepassage referred to undertheengravingreads slightlydifferently:
"Conpositumiusfasqueanimosantosquerecessus/mentisetincoctumgeneroso
pectushonesto."Suggestinga correctwayofreligiousdevotion,theversescould
be translatedas "a heart'sblendofJusticeand Right,a mindprofoundly pure,a
breast pervaded with heroic virtue" (Jenkinson 1980, 27). The ironical,
revelatory function oftheLatininscriptiondependson thereader'sknowledgeof
theclassicalsourceand on thepretentious modern(invented)authorto whichit
is applied. We are asked to considertheimplicationsof theoriginaltext- i.e.,
that"onlythegood mancan approachthegodswithoutfear"and thatthedeities
are pleased onlyby a mindthatis trulygood (Morford1984,43)- and thenew
contextof theversesin theirreference to Gulliver,a proud and conceitedliar.
Mezciemshas arguedthat"the alertand literatereaderofthetimecould findin
the motto a small movementtowardsambiguity,"for the originalsatirical
contextattacks hypocrisy;but in the new context,under a pictureclaiming
authenticity, theLatinwords"onlyconfirm qualitieswe thinkwe areexpectedto
see intheportrait"- hencetheLatintextcan againeasilymisleadreaders(1982,
50).
WhenFaulknerpublishedhis versionof GT in 1735,he triedto persuade
theLondon engraverVertueto producea portraitforthebook (Krey 1969,41).
Althoughhe was unsuccessful, thefrontispieceof theDublin edition(fig.3) is
interesting forseveralreasons.GrantHolly has commentedon thepicture:
The oval whichframesthe portraitis a shape commonto

both portraitsand mirrors,thusunderlining themimeticaspira-
tionsofthiskindofpainting.But theimageis nota portrait,pure
and simple,fortwo reasons,both of whichindicatethedecay of
thesignified and thepredominanceofsignifying. In thefirstplace,
it is the engravingof a portrait,which implies that it is a
representation .... In thesecond place, the
of a representation
imagecannotbe considereda portraitin theusual sensebecause
thereis no suchpersonas "Lemuel Gulliver."The frontispiece ...
merelyexemplifies a mode ofsignifying. . . whatwe see is thesign
of engravingbalanced on theengravingof a sign. (Holly 1979,
149-50)
A numberofobservationscan be added to Holly'sclosereadingofthelater

frontispiece.For example,the factthat the portraitrestson a pedestal is as
as the pictureitself,forin the eighteenth
significant centuryportraits,usually
done of "the bettersortof people" (mostlynoblemenand affluentmerchants),
becametherageofthenouveauxrichesintheprofessionalclass.And Swiftas well

as Hogarth objected to "this strong element of disguise in portraiture"
(Mezciems1982,52-53; Paulson 1971:1,214-215). IfGulliverhas sucha portrait
appear in his Travels, Swiftimpliesthathe is rathervaingloriousand quite the
opposite of whathe wantsto make us believein his travelogue.The pedestal,
whichliterallyand visuallyelevateshimto thepositionof an importantman,
givesGullivera "monumental"status,thusreinforcing thecontradictionwith
his discoursein whichhe claimsto be plain and humble.The frontispiece is, in
otherwords,a revelationof Gulliver'sprideand pretension.
In addition,themirrorshapeoftheportraitneedsto be considered.Ifwhat
we see "merelyexemplifies a mode ofsignifying" (Holly 1979,149),forGulliver
is a purefabrication, themirror-portrait invitesthereader/observer to reflect
on
portraying as such: Gulliver,afterall, is deliberatelyconceivedas the"average
Englishman of his period" (Swift 1986, 310 n. 2;). As "the allegorical
representative of mankind" he is "Everyman" (Real/Vienken1985, 202), a
gulliblebelieverinsurfacemeaningsand mimesis,whoseesand analysesbutdoes
not reallyunderstand(Dircks 1960; Taylor 1962; Real/Vienken1984,48-53).
His picturesuggeststhatthe readerwho looks carefullywill detectGulliver's
prideand credulityin her-or himself.The shape of thefrontispiece, then,does
notonlysuggesta mirror, itis a mirror,forthepersondepicted,sincehe does not
exist,is theone lookingat it.
The frontispiece we findin theeditionof 1735(fig.3) differs fromthefirst
portrait(1726) ina numberofsignificant details.To beginwith,we see a different
personor "author," a factthatmustthoroughly undermineanybeliefin a real
author called Gulliver.Althoughstressingthe pedestal and hence Gulliver's
pride, the second engravingdoes not completelyabandon the sophisticated
parodyoftheconventionsand stereotyped idealsofportraiture(Mezciems1982,
52) and travelliterature.Even the hide-and-seekvis-à-visthe author,already
beautifully stagedin thefirstedition,is continued,fornoneofthefourvolumes
of Faulkner's edition of Swift'sworks actually contains his full name: the
title-pageofvolumeI announces"The WorksofJ.S.,D.D., D.S. P.D."; and the
pagefacingGulliver'sfrontispiece refersto "VolumeIII. oftheAuthor'sWorks"
(fig.3). In theprefaceto vol. I Faulknerdeliberately continuesthemystification
aroundtheidentity ofthe"supposedauthor"(Krey1969,39n.1). In addition,the
newfrontispiece portraitbears an obvious resemblanceto thoseof Swiftbythe
fashionablepainterCharlesJervasand to theengravedversionwhichappearsas
frontispiecein volume I of Faulkner's 1735 edition (fig. 4). Discussing the
(probablyintended)similarities, JennyMezciemshas arguedconvincingly that
thelikenesscauses "new anxietiesabout theseparationofGulliverfromSwift,"
theconfusionofidentities requiringus to thinkcarefully about themotto(1982,
51,53).
This mottoor 'subscriptio'of the engravingreads "splendide mendax"
(gloriouslyfalse). The wordsare takenfromHorace, one of Swift'sfavourite
authors,whosevoicehe frequently borrowedas a mask(Dolan Brown1990,3-4;
120 PETERWAGNER
Ewald 1967,1-12). InHorace's Otfer (Book III: 11,1.35),thetwowordsoccurin

an ironicmarriagehymnfora reluctantbridewho is "gloriouslyfalseto her
perjuredfather"(Horace 1914,218). At firstglance,Horace's oxymoronwould
seem to identifythe person depicted (a Gulliver who appears even more
vaingloriousthantheone inthefrontispiece oftheearlieredition)as a wonderful
liar.Another,ironic,functionoftheLatin textemergeswhenone considersthe
conventional,ostentatious,use of such 'subscriptions'and of Latinizednames:
thusWilliamHogarth,in the engravingof his self-portrait producedin 1749,
called himself"GulielmusHogarth."
Finally,consideringthe deliberateconfusionof identitiescreatedby the
likenessof theportraits(Swiftlooks like Gulliverand vice versa),it is obvious
thattheportraitand mottooftheDublin editionresumetheplay withfactand
fiction,puttinga "new screenaroundtheexposedtruth"(Mezciems 1982,53).
As our glancemovesfromthefrontispiece to thetitle-pageof theedition
publishedin 1726,we discoverthatthe real titleof the book is not Gulliver's
Travels, underwhichithas gonedowninliterary history,butTravelsintoSeveral
RemoteNationsoftheWorld, withfourwordsinlargeprint.The title,simpleand
self-explanatory as it seems, is a prime example of the palimpsestsSwift
continuallycreatesinhisbook. Swiftwas apparentlywellawareofthefactthata
titleis whatGenettecalls "une clé interprétative"(1987,88), and thatitcan bait,
influence,and seduce readers.Recently,thefunctionof titlesin literaryworks
has found some critical attention(Di Fazio Alberti 1984; Rothe 1986).
Discussingthetypographic and iconographieinformation containedintitlesand
subtitles,Genette distinguishesthree main functions,i.e., identification,
description, and seduction(1987,73,88-89); healso pointsouttheimportanceof
thereader("la complaisanceherméneutique du récepteur"[74]) who relatesthe
titleto thecontentsofthebook. Swiftknewófcoursethathistitlewouldconfuse
contemporaryreaders,for by his time traveltales "were gainingincreasing
authority as reportsof a newreality"(Mezciems1982,46). His titledeliberately
designatesan ambiguous"architext"(thetravelogue)but does not disclosethe
exact nature(form,genreetc.) of the textthatfollows.The earlyeighteenth-
centuryreaderwouldhavewonderedwhethersheor he had boughtan authentic
travelreport,a workoffictionsuchas theimaginaryvoyage,a Robinsonadeor
one of the many"nautical versionsof spiritualautobiography"(Novak 1990,
26). As a matterof fact,the contemporary literarybackgroundwas farfrom
being helpfulin this case (Adams 1983, 38). MaximillianNovak correctly
remindsus that"we have to recognizethatduringthe seventeenthand early
eighteenthcenturies,works of fiction,particularlythose writtenin the first
person,tendedto mix all kindsof elements"(1990, 27). Swift,who detested
systemssuch as literarytaxonomies,clearlyplays with the reader's generic
expectations(Passmann 1987,14,340, 344-46), creating"a puzzle forthecritic
who likedto place his literaryworksin neat categories"(Novak 1990,31).
Baitingthe readerwiththe apparentlyfamiliar,Swiftconductsher/him
throughthe"entranceways" (i.e., theparatextofthe"editorialsection")ofthe
book intothetextwheretheconfusionbecomesevenmoreintense.The titlepage

offersanotherexampleofthisintentional"misleading,"a further stepas itwere
towardsthereader'spuzzlement:thesub-titleclaimsthatGT is writtenby one
"Lemuel Gulliver,firsta Surgeon,and thena Captain of severalShips." While
the firstname, Lemuel ("devoted to God"), whichis a subtle ironichintat
dissentingauthorslike Daniel Defoe, underlinesthe author's "veracity"in a
Lucianic manner,the familyname offersadditional ambiguous possibilities
(Real/Vienken1984,46-47). "Gulliver" is, on theone hand,a typicalSwiftean
pun that connotes such meaningsas the verb "to gull" and the adjective
"gullible";on theotherhand,RichardSympsonconfirmsin hisletterfollowing
thetitlepage that"Mr. Gulliverwas bornin Nottinghamshire ... yethis Family
came fromOxfordshire ... I have observedin theChurch-Yard at Banbury. . .
severalTombs and Monumentsof the Gullivers "
(Swift1986,xl). If a literal-
mindedreader wanted to verifythis information, his confusionwould have
increasedupon findingthata Gulliverfamilyactuallylivedat Banburywhere,in
thechurchyard of St. Mary's,severalGullivertombstonesare stilllegible(Swift
1986,309 n. 3). Thereis an additionalintertextualand parodiedimensioninthat
the collocation "Lemuel Gulliver" would remindan educated reader of a
similarlycontradictory name,thatofthefictionaltraveller RaphaelHythlodaeus
(meaning"salvationbringer"and "well learnedin nonsense")in More's Utopia
who was also a ship's captain(Mezciems 1982,47).
The information thesub-titleprovidesabout Gulliver'sprofessions is again
a typicalmixtureof allusions to travelliterature(i.e., to the familiar)and of
subtlewarningsabout theallegedauthor'sreliability. In fact,to a contemporary
reader,theword"surgeon"wouldhavesuggestedquitetheoppositeofwhatthe
termdenotesand connotestoday.MaximillianNovak has shownthatGulliver,
as a ship surgeon,"is a good candidatefora picaresquetale" (1990, 29), for
surgeonshad figuredas rogues and narratorsin picaresque fiction,such as
VincenteEspinel'sLa vidadeMarcosde Obregon(translatedintoFrenchin 1618)
and SimonTyssotde Patot's The TravelsandAdventures ofJamesMassey(first
publishedin Frenchin 1710). Gulliver'sprofession,then,suggestspicaresque
fiction,one ofthegenresor hypotexts GT incorporates(Paulson 1967,162-69);
butitalso connotestheunreliability ofthepicaroand liar,a dimensionthatwas
furtherstrengthened bythebad reputationsurgeonsand doctorshad intheearly
eighteenthcentury.In popular discourse they were generallymocked as
charlatansand quacks, and even novelistsand artistssuch as Fielding and
Hogarthusuallydepictdoctorsas cheatsand mountebanks(Wagner1988,8-47;
Porter1989). Gulliver'ssecondprofession,"captain ofseveralships,"worksin
thesameway,suggesting boththeworksofearlierauthorsoftravelliterature and
the factthat some of them,includingThomas More's Raphael Hythlodaeus,
were"travelliars" or plagiarists(Adams 1962; Mezciems 1982,47; Passmann
1987,97-101, 333-39).
Consideringthevarietyofliterary genresand offamiliarformsofdiscourse
we discoveras an integralpartof theparatextof GT (e.g., travelliterature, the
122 PETERWAGNER
imaginary voyage,thepicaresquenovel,and thememoir),one mightsaythatthe

"frontmatter"of Swift'spalimpsestsimulates.It simulatesabove all a travel
book. Simulation, according to Jean Baudrillard,puts into question the
differencebetweenthetrueand thefalse,betweentherealand theimaginaryor
imagined,eventuallysubstituting signsor iconsoftherealforrealityitself(1981,
12). Swiftdecided on simulationas a satiricstrategyfortwo reasons. Firstly,
becausehefoundittoo simpleto "adopt thebluntinstrument ofcondemnation,"
appropriating instead"the ideas and languageofthosewho wereto be attacked
and lampooned" (Croghan 1990,30). And secondly,because the Dean was a
radical iconoclast (Paulson 1989, 35-48) who saw clearly the danger of
simulationinreligion,especiallyinconnectionwithiconsand thesimulacrumof
divinity(Baudrillard 1981, 14). He rejectedsimulationin art and literature
because, in his opinion,it was liable to produce iconolaterswho mistookthe
forthesignified,
signifier thusadoringand deifying the(artisticor literary)
image
of a woman,forinstance,insteadof beingsensible.
As we move furtherinto the paratext,the simulationof authenticity
continues:inthefirstpage afterthetitleinMotte'seditionand inthetitle-pageof
Faulkner'seditionofGT we findan additionalexampleofthewaySwiftadopts
thesimulationof certainkindsof discourse- but onlyto hoistit withits own
petard.IfweacceptthecriticalviewthatGulliver,inhisroleas observerwhofails
to understand, is one ofSwift'ssatirictargets,thelayoutofbothpagesappearsin
a new light.The Motteeditionliststhefourpartsof the Travelsin an orderly,
sequentialform,withthe parts identifiedby Roman numerals.And the first
impressionof Faulkner'snew arrangement of thesubtitle("In Four Parts") is
also one of order:thevoyagesare now rubricatedin two columns,again with
Roman numeralslistingGulliver'sfourtravels.We know that Book IV, the
travelintothecountryofthehorses,was written beforeBook III - and Swifthad
hisreasonsforrearranging theorderinwhichthetravelsfinallyappearedinbook
form(Real/Vienken1984,20,56-58). To an eighteenth-century reader,however,
theorderingofthediscourseinthetitle-pagewouldhaveimmediately suggested
thesimilarorderofa scientific treatise.Whattheorderingofthepage simulates
thenis theverysimulationofthescientific discourseoftheEnlightenment which
pretendedto discover or uncover ultimate truthsby stickingto precise
observationand formallogic.Gullivertravelsfromtheworldofsmallthingsto
thatof giantcreatures,and thenon to morecomplicatedand "more perfect"
worlds. Gulliver's "progress," in other words, is from the simple to the
complicated,and fromthe familiarto the unknown.Simulatingan ordered
discourseaccordingto the"scientific"principlesof theday,thesub-titleof the
editionsof 1726 and 1735 thustriesto lend credibility to thetextthatfollows
while mockingthe obession with order which we find in abundance in the
discourseof Enlightenment scientists,especiallyin the works of the natural
historians(Reynaud 1990,362-63). In thiscontext,itis importantto recallthat
theRoyalSocietygaveinstructions to itsmembersand to travelershowto record
theirobservations(Passmann 1987,134). The satireon thestyleand contentof
thePhilosophicalTransactionsoftheRoyal Societyand on ThomasSprat'shistory

ofthatinstitutionthusbeginsnotinBook III ofGT (Real/Vienken1984,9 1-93),
but in thesub-titlethatboth apes and underminesthealleged logical orderof
Enlightenment reportson scientific
discoveriesand experiments.
The title-pageof Faulker'seditioncontainsa motto:" - Retroq;/ Vulgus
abhorretab his"- whosefunctions have notbeen sufficientlyexplored.Ignoring
thedifferencefromtheoriginalas wellas thecontextofthesource,Kreyhas argued
thatthe epigraph,borrowedfromLucretius'sDe rerumnatura, triesto get the
readerinterestedinthebook (39). Yet therelationsbetweenthemottoand GT are
muchmorecomplex.Swiftwas verywellawareofthevariousfunctions ofmottoes
and epigraphsin thelargercontextof paratexts.Thus,in his satirical,tongue-in-
cheek,A LetterofAdviceto a YoungPoet (1721)7he admonisheshisaddressee:
You mustnot fail to dress your Muse in a Forehead-cloathof
Greekor Latin, I mean, you are always to make use of a qaint
Motto to all your Compositions: ; for besides that, this Artifice
bespeaks the Readers Opinion of the WritersLearning,it is
otherwiseUseful and Commendable. A brightPassage in the
Frontofa Poem is a good Mark . . . and thePiece willcertainlygo
offthebetterforit . . . Words are but Lackies to sense,and will
danceAttendance,withoutWagesor Compulsion. (Swift1965b,
vol. ix, 338)
This passage betraysnotmerelySwift'sknowledgeofepigraphicconventions, it
also warnsus about theDean's own iconoclasticstrategyin theuse of mottoes.
As to theepigraphborrowedfromLucretius,we mustkeepin mindthecomplex
relationsbetweenmottoesand thetitlesand authorstheyreferto, bothin their
paratextsand hypotexts. Genette(1987, 134-49) sees fourmainfunctionsofthe
epigraphin books: itcommentson and, to a certainextent,explainsthetitle;it
providesa commentary on thetext;it drawsour attentionto theauthorof the
epigraph; and it whatGenetteterms"l'effetépigraphe... un signal
constitutes
... de culture,un motde passage d'intellectualité" (1987, 148-49).
The mottofromLucretiusinthetitle-pageofGT fulfills thesefunctions. To
beginwith,Titus LucretiusCarus (97-55 B.C.), an advocate of Epicurus,must
have been congenialto Swiftbecause he triedto makepoetrysubservient to his
didacticaims. Guided by logic and humanitarianideals, Lucretiusturnedhis
majorworkintoa dramaofrecognitionor enlightenment, and itis thisaspectof
De rerumnaturawhichappealed to thewritersoftheEnlightenment (Lucretius
1982,ix-liv).Both thetextand thecontextof thesourceare important, forthe
"
original contains a differentpronoun (hac), reading - retroque/ volgus
abhorretab hac" (the people shrinkback fromit). It occurstwicein De rerum
natura(1,1.944-45; and IV, 1. 19-20): in each case Lucretius"compareshimself
to a doctorwho,tryingto administerdistastefulmedicineto a child,firstcoats
therimofthecup withhoney,to trickthechildintotakingthebeneficialdose"
(Lucretius 1982, 1). The word "hac" refersto a doctrine(ratio), on which
Lucretius'spassage commentsthus:
124 PETERWAGNER
Sincethisdoctrinecommonlyseemssomewhatharshto thosewho
havenotused it,and thepeople shrinkback fromit,I havechosen
to setforthmydoctrineto youinsweet-speakingPieriansong,and
as itwereto touchitwiththeMuses' delicioushoney,ifbychance
insucha wayI mightengageyourmindinmyverses,whileyouare
learningto see in what shape is framedthe whole nature of
things. (1982, 79)
Since in theparatextof GT "hac" becomes "his" (i.e., "fromthem"or "with

them"),it mustbe relatedto "Travels," to Gulliver'sreport.And thisopens a
varietyof new significations,includingSwift'simitationof Lucretius(dressing
up his "doctrine"in theattractivegarb of thetravelogue)and the warningto
shrinkback fromGulliver'slies.Swift'suse ofthemotto,then,demonstrates his
magisterial commandand subversionofa literary conventionthatwas extremely
popular in the eighteenthcentury(Berger 1982, 375). The epigraph from
Lucretiuscommentson boththerealand theinventedauthorsoftheTravels,and
it addressesan educated,wary,readerwho is meantto noticenot so muchthe
traditional"learningof the author" (Berger 376) conveyedby his classical
source, but rather"l'effetépigraphe" in that Swiftobviouslyplays with a
convention.
As we turnto whatmightbe calledtheprefaceoftheDublin edition(1735),
we noticethatSwiftagain simulatesnot merelythe various partsof fictional
prefacesbutalso theirverytechniques(intheearlierMotteeditionwefinda letter
from"The Publisherto theReader,"followedbythetitle-pageofpartI, and two
pagesofchaptersummaries).Like thefrontispiece thepreface
and thetitle-page,
(the "Advertisement"and the two lettersfromSympsonand Gulliver)8is a
highlysophisticatedand treacherousentrance-way to the main text;its three
partsreferto each otherin severalwayswhiletrying to createauthenticity;they
commenton thetextthatfollows;and theycontainhintsand cluesabout thetrue
natureof Gulliverand his allegedlytruetravels.
Genettehas arguedthattheprefacematterinworksoffiction,sinceittries
to persuadethereaderof theauthor's"veracity"and of thetruenatureof his
work,mustsimulatethe special typesand functionsof prefacesone findsin
non-fiction (1987, 257). A close look at GT revealsindeedthatmostof these
functions (1987,258-65) arebeingimitated.Thustheeditororpublisherexplains
how he receivedthetext;we findremarksabout correctionsand changes(style
and cuts); thereis some information about the author's(Gulliver's) life;and
Gulliver(theauthorand hero)commentson hisowntextinthemannerofwriters
of autobiographies(Genette 1987,267). What is moreimportant,however,is
Swift'sassault on conventionsof writing, forthefictionalprefaceas a framing
device(Forster1987, 179) ultimately and stagesitself.
reflects
The "Advertisement"begins with a sentencethat seems to contain a
mistake:"Mr. Sympson'sLetterto Captain Gulliver"(Swift1986,xxxiv).In his
editionof GT (1986) Paul Turnernotes that this is "a mistakefor 'Captain
Gulliver's Letter to Mr. Sympson'" (Swift 1986, 307n.2). But it is hardly

imaginablethatthecorrectededitionof 1735shouldcontainsuch a "howler."
Since Swift,aftersome initialhesitation,gave Faulknerreal assistancein the
preparationof GT (Swift1965b,xxvii),thepointis thatthe"mistake"mustbe
intentional, foritimmediately throwssome lighton thefictionalnatureofboth
Sympsonand Gulliver.The rest of the textof the advertisement plays with
various conventionsof prefaces in travelogues.Thus Swift practices the
traditionalsatiricalartofwriting a prefacebyclaimingthatone willnotwriteone
(Genette1987,217) whenhe has thepublisheroftheadvertisement declarethat
Sympson'sletter(whichis reallyGulliver'sletter)"willmakea longAdvertisment
unnecessary"(1986, xxxiv).We also findthe traditional"excusado propter
infirmitatem" (Genette1987,192-93),which,paradoxically,is intendedto boost
theliteraryworkas suchand servesas whatLichtenberg termeda lightning rod
(Genette1987,192-93): admitting thattheworkcontains"manyAlterationsand
Insertions,"theadvertisement blames"a Personsincedeceased,"a ghostwriter,
whom the publisherhad entrustedwith the alterationsbut who did not
comprehend"the Scheme of theAuthor,nor ... his plain simpleStyle." The
ghostwriter is also held responsibleforthe ticklishpoliticalallusion Gulliver
later complains about in his letter.The final part then commentson the
corrections fortheDublin edition,constructing a mystery abouttheoriginofGT
and thehandlingof themanuscript.
Althoughratherludicin itsseemingly genuinereferences to "real" persons
(Sympson,Gulliver,a ghostwriter, a friend,a publisher),thewholepointofthis
piece is of courseto createan impressionof authenticity. This is also themain
functionof thetextfollowingit,"A LetterFrom Capt. Gulliverto His Cousin
Sympson."In thisangryletter,added in theeditionof 1735 and perhapseven
writtenspeciallyforit(Swift1986,307n.l), Gulliverwritesas heroand author.
Along the way he voices some of Swift'scriticismof the edition,but, more
importantly,also gives himselfaway unwittinglyas he provides us with
information about the genesisand the trueaims of his book. There are some
intertextual references to the"Interpolator"(i.e., ghostwriter) and thepolitical
passage mentionedin the "Advertisement,"thus ostensiblyincreasingthe
truthfulness ofbothtexts.Importanthypotexts forGT are also mentioned,e.g.,
"
"my Cousin Dampier and his book A Voyageroundthe Worldwhich had
appeared in 1697 (Swift1986,xxxv),and More's Utopia.Since the pirateand
explorerWilliamDampier (1652-1715) copied manypassages in hisbook from
otherwriters, thisis one ofthefirstinstancesintheletterwhereSwifthas Gulliver
unmaskhimself.We notice,forinstance,thatGulliverwantsto appear honest
and humble.Insistingon his "veracity,"he pointsout thefactthathe was able
"in theCompass oftwoyears... to removethatinfernalHabit ofLying"(Swift
1986,xxxviii);and he complainsto Sympsonthathiscousin"prevailedon [him]
to publisha veryloose and uncorrectAccountof[his]Travels,"and thatbecause
of unauthorisedalterations,he made him "say the thingthatwas not" (1986,
xxxv).On theotherhand,Gulliveremergesas a hypocritical Puritan(his style,
126 PETERWAGNER
and suchwordsas Vice and Folly,Virtueand Wisdom,are clearindicationsof

Swift'saims: 1986,xxxvii)withsuch an immensepride in "mine own Work"
(xxxvi)thathe willneitherthankSympsonnorpardon himthemistakes.
By havingGulliverunmaskhisprideand pretensionSwiftindicatesin the
paratextthatthenarratormustnot be trustedand thathe is in factone of the
targetsofthesatire.We aregiventhemostobviouscluewhenGulliver,following
thetraditionof autobiographicalprefaces(Genette1987,205), talksabout the
real,moral,aimsofhisbook (whichthetitleplacesamongtravelbooks). He tells
hiscousinSympsonthatinpublishingtheTravelshe intendedto see "a fullStop
put to all Abuses and Corruptions,at least in this littleIsland" and that he
expected"a Thousand otherReformations... as indeed theywere plainly
deduciblefromthePreceptsdeliveredin myBook," but thateven"afterabove
Six MonthsWarning,I cannotlearnthatmyBook hath producedone single
Effectaccordingto mineIntentions"(Swift1986,xxxvi-xxxvii).Ironicallybut
tellingly,he expecteda sound reformation of mannersand moralsin England,
preferring, among manyotherthings,"the Physiciansbanished"(1986, xxxvi)
whileforgetting thatthetitle-pageofhisbook declareshim"firsta Surgeonand
thena Captain."
Gulliver'sletteris a brilliantexampleof the way Swiftsimulatesliterary
practicesand conventions(thepreface,theauthor'sletterto hispublisher)while
undermining theirtraditonalfunctionsin an attemptto imposehis own satiric
aims.Gulliveris in thisinstanceallowedto seizethewordin whatinitiallylooks
like a traditionalliterarypractice.Those who read withcare willdiscovernot
onlythetruenatureof thehero's characterbut also thelimitsof theparatext
Swiftsubverts.
This simulationcontinuesin RichardSympson'sletter,"The Publisherto
theReader," whichapes theclaim forauthenticity and truthfulness in similar
pieces that were a standardpart of travelogues.The intertextual references,
masterfully hiddeninstylisticallusionsofa textthatunveilsitsmendacitybythe
veryinsistenceon Gulliver's"veracity"and the "Air of Truth" in his report
(Swift1986,xl),areto Lucian's TrueHistoryas wellas to Dampier's Voyagesand
similartravelbooks (Swift1986,309n.3-5). We findthetellingmixtureof fact
and fiction,of trueand false,thatcharacterizestheentireparatextof GT. The
textualplaywithgenericconventionsand readerexpectationsculminatesin the
final,ironic,sentencewhichrefersthescepticalreaderto Gulliverhimselfwhose
textwillprovide"satisfaction"as faras theauthor'sauthenticity is concerned.
Ill
In GT Swiftmakes the paratextualmatterof the prefacean act that

eventuallyreflectsand mimesitself.RecallingthemythofNarcissus,who fellin
love not withhis face but withthe image of his face,Genettehas arguedthat
" à la fois génée et joueuse," a
prefacesin generalreflecta self-consciousness
self-representation inthemirrorthatcomescloseto a dramatization(1987,269).

As such, the preface,withits narcissisticaspects (the author or his invented
author watcheshimself,as it were,being presentedor represented)mustbe
consideredas one of themosttypicalliterary practices.It is hardlycoincidental
thatthemythofNarcissus,whichstructures and inspiresthecomedyand satire
of theparatextin GT, is again evoked,althoughin theusual tongue-in-cheek
Swifteanmanner,on the veryfirstpage of Gulliver'stext,whenthe innocent
Gulliver becomes involved in a pun on "Master Bates" and the verb
"masturbates"(Fox 1986, 17-18).
Wheneverhe putpen to paper,JonathanSwiftwas criticallyaware of the
literary genres,traditionsand conventions he engagedwith.More oftenthannot,
his workstranscendand undermineconventionalframesfor,in a mannerof
speaking,he could not avoid lookingover his own shoulderand thuscreating
self-images(Harth 1985, 113). The prefaceof GT, ifprefaceit is, is one such
magisterialand brilliantexample.Takingtheplace ofthedebatestructure inthe
worksof Plato and More, theprefatory material"trainsthereader'sabilityto
bewareofsimplejudgmentsand to recognizethatthetruthoftheidea is notthat
oftheworld"(Mezciems1982,54). Swiftevengoes further inthattheparatextof
GT oftenimitatesand subvertsthesimilarparatextswefindinMore's Utopiaand
in the opening sections of Lucian's True Stories, where the narrator-liars
commenton theveracityof theirdiscourse.Fusingvariouskindsand formsof
discoursetraditionally used in fictionand historiography, Swift'schef-d'œuvre
constructssemioticworldsonlyto questionand to destroythem(Croghan28).
GT ultimately refersthereaderto theauthor'scentralconcernwhichemergesin
all of his writingsand whichhe sharedwithotherwritersof "travelliterature"
such as Vairasse and Foigny(Pons 1932): thereliabilityof language(Goetsch
1988),and thefictitious natureof realitywhichdependson unreliablediscourse
(Mezciems 1982,46; Schmidt1985,253), the best examplebeingthe truth/lie
dichotomyof travelogues(Adams 1983,81-103).
It is a matterofdiscretionto decidewheretheparatextendsand wherethe
"main" text of GT begins. For both the editionspublished by Motte and
Faulkner contain two furtherparts that are, strictlyspeaking, not from
"Gulliver'spen." Like thefinalchapterof GT, in whichGulliverreflectsagain
on his own work (and which, in Genette's terminologythus constitutesa
peritext),the table of contentsas well as the firstmap still belong to the
paratextualcorpusof GT. In lieu of a conclusionand in viewof theworkto be
done fora futurecriticaleditionof GT, I should liketo pointout verybriefly
whatremainsto be analyzedin theparatextof Swift'smagnificent palimpsest.
Firstofall, thechaptersummaries.Theyare listedin one groupbeforethe
map and themaintext,as iftheywerea textto be consideredapart(liketheletters
beforethem).Their verypositionimmediatelyremindsthe reader of similar
arrangements in novelsand travelreportspublishedbeforeGT. Alludingto a
greatvarietyof genresand hypotexts, fromDefoe's RobinsonCrusoeto travel
reports,autobiographiesand historiographie works,thistextualpartofthebook
128 PETERWAGNER
deservessome attention.For its intertextual and structuralfunctionsplay an

importantrole in the general underminingof Gulliver's text which Swift
orchestrates by simulationfromtheverybeginningof thebook.
Thisis also trueofthemapsthatprecedethefourpartsofGT. Like theoval
portraitof Gulliverthat suggeststhe "true" reflectionof a mirrorbut really
showsan Everymanor nobody,themapspretendto replicatetheworld,offering
verifiablefacts(genuinecoast lines knownto eighteenth-century readers)and
fictionaldystopias.
In addition,Motte's "corrected"editionof GT, publishedin May 1727,
containedfivepoems,entitled"Verses on Gulliver* s Travels," as an additional
partofwhatRobertA. Greenberghas termed"theopeningmatterofthesecond
editionof the Travels" (Swift1970,275). Exceptingthe Nortonedition(Swift
1970,275-84), thesecomicand parodiepoems,probablywrittenby Pope, Gay
and Arbuthnot(see, however,Teerink,1963,195),havebeenconsideredneither
forcriticaleditionsnorfortheirinterpretative value. Imitatingtheminglingof
discursiveformsone findsin GT, thepoemsare heldina varietyofpoeticgenres
and evokedifferent contextsofthebook. Greenberghas arguedthatthey"are a
delightin themselves"and thatthey"are helpfulin suggestinghow thismost
remarkableofvolumeswas receivedbySwift'sowncircle"(Swift1970,vii).The
formaland intertextual functionsof thesepartlybawdy poems ought to be
exploredwithinthelargerframeof theparatextof GT.
My briefdiscussionof some importantparts of the paratextin Swift's
masterpieceshould demonstratethe literarysophisticationof a highlyself-
reflexivebook thatstandsin a line of outstandingworksof fictionextending
fromCervantes'sDon Quijote to Sterne's TristramShandyand postmodern
examples,suchas UmbertoEco's II Nomedella rosa (1980), whichuse paratexts
in a similarmannerthat is both ludic and revealing(Genette 1987, 371-72).
Simulatingthe textsand contextsof travelliterature,Swift'sparatextin GT,
althoughonlyan accessoryto themaintext,provesto be a fascinatingiftricky
entrance-way to a maze in whichthecarefulreaderis meantto findthehidden
cluesto theauthor'spointofview.As RichardNash has arguedrecently, "to read
Swiftis to experienceentrapment,"for Swift'sironic strategy"requires the
readerto participateactivelyin thetext'screationof meaningin a mannerthat
conformsto themeaningbeingcreated"(Nash 1991,415, 431). Approachinga
Swifteantext,one willbe well advisedto take cognizanceof Genette'scaveat:
"attention au paratexter (Genette1987,376).
NOTES
I wish toacknowledge thehelpI received from twocolleagues inthepreparation ofthis article.

Matthias Korn, attheUniversity ofEichstätt, gavemeadvice onSwift's Latin sources. Andmygood
friend Hermann Josef Real,attheUniversity ofMünster, letmepartake inhisgenerous wayofthe
treasures ofhisEhrenpreis Centre andofhisimmense knowledge ofSwift's works.
1 Cf.thecontradictory readings ofthis letterbyReal/Vienken (1984, 27f.),whomake Swift's
pronouncements thebasisoftheir interpretation ofGT,andbyHalewood/Levich (1965, 276f.),who
consider thepassage tobeironical.
2 Forcritical surveys ofthefield, from theworks ofKristeva downtoDerrida andJ.Hillis
Miller, seeCuller 1981, 100-19; Genette 1982;andBroich/Pfister 1985. Genette deplores repeatedly,
andwith good reason, thefactthatthere isnocoherent terminology inthefield (1982, 7n.2;1ln.l).
3 Inview oftheidiosyncratic andhence confusing terminology inthefield ofintertextuality I
should liketoclarify someoftheterms, borrowed from Genette, usedinthisarticle.
By"intertextuality" I donotmeanthelarge, comprehensive, concepts oftextual relations that
form thebasisoftheworks ofJulia Kristeva, Michael Riffaterre andHarold Bloom, butsimply the
relations thatariseoutofthepresence ofonetext orevenseveral texts inanother text ["unerelation
decoprésence entre deuxouplusieurs textes ... la présence effective d'untexte dansunautre"]
(Genette 1982,8). Oneform ofintertextuality Genette analyzes inparticular is called"hyper-
textuality"; thismeans, forinstance, thata textB, a "hypertext," is derived from a textA, a
"hypotext" (1982,11-12).
"Architext" designates allgeneral categories, suchasforms ofdiscourse, types ofspeech, and
literary genres, eachtextderives from ["l'ensemble descatégories générales, ou transcendantes -
typesde discours, modes d'énonciation, genres littéraires, -
etc. dont relève texte
chaque singulier"]
(Genette 1982, 7).
Theterm "paratext" describes thesurroundings ofa (main) text ina book,e.g.,itstitle, preface,
notesetc., which support thereception process ofa bookortext ["uncertain nombre deproductions,
elles-mêmes verbales ounon. . . qui. . . l'entourent etleprolongent, précisément pourleprésenter "]
(Genette 1987,7). Genette distinguishes between thespatial partofa paratext, which heterms
"péritexte," andthetexts that areoutside thebookbutstill relatetoit(interviews, lettersetc.), which
arecalled"épitexte." A "paratext," then, consistsofa "péritexte" andan"épitexte" (Genette 1987,
10-11).
4 Ina rather uninspired manner, theSwift industry hastried toprove thatSwift hadjustone
Sympson inmind. Fora survey ofcontradictory views seeReal/Vienken 1984, 150n.33. Both authors
ruleoutthepossibility thatSwift might refertoSym[p]son's travelogue because itwasnotinthe
Dean'slibrary; butSwift reada great many travelbooks, someofthem notinhispossession, before
hestarted writing GT.Andeventhough Sympson isoneofSwift's posesormasks, oneshould still
consider thefascinating relations between therealandthefictitious, between textual andauthorial
pretension andsemantic reality, which thenamesuggests. SeealsoPassmann 1987,335-37, who
argues that Swift knew Symson's plagiarized travel-book andusedthename deliberately tocreate yet
another riddle tobesolved bycareful readers.
5 Thatpartofthebook, too,stillawaitsa critical editor. In viewofthefactthatSwift
deliberately undermines generic andeditorial conventions, itseemsoddthatnoneoftheextant
criticaleditions payssufficient attention tothevarious parts andthesequence oftheparatext inGT:
thusthePenguin edition (1967), drawing onMotte's version of1726, contains nofrontispiece but
incorporates parts oftheparatext oftheDublin edition. TheNorton edition (1970), which isbasedon
Faulkner's edition of1735, leaves outthe"Advertisement" andputsSympson's andGulliver's letters
thefrontispiece
after andtitle page;italsocontains poems ofthesecond edition ofGT(1727), yetthe
editor reprints these after themaintext ofthebook.
PaulTurner's edition (1986)forOxford University Press, alsobasedontheDublin edition of
1735, firstprints the"front matter" (theadvertisement andtheletters) before thefrontispiece and
title
page - which are,however, those oftheLondon edition of1726.
Clearly, intheinterest ofSwift's intentions andtheimportance ofthearrangement ofthe
paratextual elements, a future critical edition shouldpaycloseattention to theseseemingly
"marginal" details.
6 Captain Smith's various travel reports arenotlisted intheinventories ofthelibraries of
SwiftandTemple. Thisdoesnotmean, however, thatSwift didnotknow theworks. Just before he
began writing GThereadSirThomas Herbert's Relation ,andinJuly 1722,hewrote toVanessa that
130 PETERWAGNER
hehad"readI know nothowmany diverting BooksofHistory andTravells" (Williams1932, 56;

Swift1965a,vol.II: 430-31; Real/Vienken 1984,35).Forlistsoftravel inSwift's
literature library
andinthatofSirWilliam Temple seePassmann 1987,473-78.Although ittends andto
torubricate
create"genres"oftravel literature
(authentic works, imaginary voyages, liesetc.)inthe
travel
manner ofdoctoral Passmann's
dissertations, study is thebestsurvey ofthebackground of
atthetime
travelogues Swiftwaswriting.Novak, however, correctly
pointsoutthatwemust bearin
mind thatbothGTandthetravel books itrefers bytheir
toaredistinguished mixingofmany forms of
fictional
discourse
(1990, 31-35).
7 Ontheauthenticity ofthispiece,signed "E.F.,"seeSwift 1965b,vol.IX,xxiv-xxvii;and
Milic1967,237f.
8 Inhisstudy of"entrance-ways" ("seuils")tobooks, Genette definestheprefaceas every
sortofliminaltext, bytheauthor oranother person,consistingofdiscourse aboutthetextthat
followsorprecedes ["toute detexte
espèce liminaire oupostliminaire),
(préliminaire auctorialou
consistant
allographe, enundiscours produit à proposdutexte quisuitouquiprécède"] (1987,150).
WORKSCITED
Adams, G. 1962.Travelers
Percy andTravel Liars:1660-1800. LosAngeles: P.
U ofCalifornia
- . 1983.Travel andtheEvolution
Literature oftheNovel. Lexington: U ofKentucky P.
Louise
Barnett, K. 1990.
"Deconstructing Gulliver'sTravels: Modern Readers andtheProblematic of
Genre."Frederick N.Smith 230-46.
Barr,William.1987."Introduction andCommentary." TheSatires ofPersius. Trans.GuyLee.
Liverpool:FrancisCairns.
1-12.
Jean.1981.
Baudrillard, Simulacresetsimulation. Paris:Galilée.
Dieter
Berger, A. 1982."DamntheMottoe": ScottandtheEpigraph." Anglia 373-96.
100.3/4:
Ulrich
Broich, andManfred eds.1985.
Pfister, textualität.
Inter Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Croghan,MartinJ.1990. "SavageIndignation: AnIntroduction tothePhilosophy ofLanguage and
SemioticsinJonathan Swift."SwiftStudies 5: 11-37.
Jonathan.
Culler, 1981.ThePursuit ofSigns: Semiotics, Literature,Deconstruction. N.Y.:
Ithaca,
CornellU P.
Dampier,William. 1698.
ANewVoyage Round theWorld. London.
Derrida,
Jacques.1981."TheLawsofGenre." Trans.Avital Ronell. Critical
Inquiry7(1980).
Repr.
inOnNarrative, ed.W.J.T. Mitchell.Chicago: U ofChicago Press: 51-77.
Di FazioAlberti,
Margherita.1984.Il titolo
e lafunzione paraletteraria.Torino:Eri.
Richard
Dircks, J.1960."Gulliver'sTragic Rationalism." Criticism 2: 134-49.
DolanBrown, M.Elaine.1990."ThePoet'sMask:Swift, Horace, Steelein'TheFirst Odeofthe
SecondBookofHoraceParaphrased.'" SwiftStudies 5:3-10.
Vincente.
Espinel, 1618.
Relacionesdela vidayaventuras delEscudero Marcos deObregon.Madrid.
- . 1618.Lesrelations
deM.ď Obregon. Paris.
Ewald,WilliamBragg. 1967[1954].TheMasksofJonathan Swift.Oxford: Blackwell.Repr.New
York:Russell& Russell.
Fabian,Bernhard. "
1970.Gulliver'sTravelsalsSatire." Poetica 3:421-34.
Jean-Paul.
Forster, 1987.
"Swift:TheSatiricalUseofFraming Fictions." TheStructure Udo
ofTexts.
ed.Tübingen:
Fries, Narr.177-93.
1986."TheMyth
Fox,Christopher. ofNarcissus inSwift'sTravels Studies
." Eighteenth-Century 20:
17-33.
Frye,Northrop.1957.TheAnatomy ofCriticism. Princeton:Princeton U P.
Genette,Gérard. 1979.Introduction à l'architexte.Paris:Seuil.

1982.Palimpsestes. La littératureausecond degré.Paris:Seuil.
- . 1987. Seuils.Paris:Seuil.
Goetsch, Paul. 1988."Linguistic Colonialism and Primitivism: The Discovery of Native
Languages andOralTraditions inEighteenth-Century TravelBooksandNovels." Anglia
106:338-359.
Gove,PhilipBabcock.1961[1941].TheImaginary Voyage inProseFiction: A History ofits
Criticism.London: Holland.
Halewood, William H.andMarvin Levich. 1965."Houyhnhnm estAnimal Rationale."Journalof
theHistory ofIdeas26:273-78.
Halsband, Robert.1985."Eighteenth-Century Illustrationsof Gulliver'sTravels." Realand
Vienken, eds.83-112.
Hammond, Brean.1988.Gulliver's Travels. Milton Keynes: OpenU P.
Harth,Phillip.1985."Swift's Self-Image RealandVienken,
as Satirist." eds.113-22.
Herbert,Thomas. 1634.ARelation ofSomeYeares Travaile,Begunne Anno1626.London.
Holly,Grant.1979."TravelandTranslation: Textuality in Gulliver's
Travels." Criticism21:
134-53.
Horace[Quintus Horatius Flaccus].1914.TheOdesandEpodes. Trans.C.E.Bennett. Cambridge,
Mass.:Harvard U P. TheLoebClassical Library.
Hunfeld, Hans.1990."Gullivers fünfte Insel."Literatur alsSprachlehre.Berlin:Langenscheidt.
179-212.
Hunter, "
J.Paul.1990. Gulliver's Travels andtheNovel."Frederick N. Smith 56-75.
Jenkinson, J.R.,ed.1980.Persius. TheSatires. Warminster: Aris& Phillips.
Friedrich.
Krey, 1969. Interpretationskommentar zuGulliver's Travels:Vorspann undBuchl.Diss.
Berlin.
JonS. 1968. "Dr.Lemuel Gulliver andtheThingWhich "
WasNot.' Journal and
Lawry, ofEnglish
Germanic Philology 67:217-22.
LeBlanc, Vincent. 1660.TheWorldSurveyed: Or,TheFamous Voyages andTraveilesofVincentLe
BlancorWhite, ofMarseilles.London.
Lucian.1913.Verae Historiae. Trans.A.M.Harmon. Cambridge, Mass.:Harvard U P.TheLoeb
ClassicalLibrary.
Lucretius [TitusLucretius Carus].1982.De rerum natura.Ed. MartinFerguson Smith.
Cambridge, Mass.:Harvard U P. TheLoebClassical Library.
Mezciems, Jenny. 1982."Utopiaand'theThingwhich is not':More,Swift, andOtherLying
Idealists."UniversityofToronto Quarterly 52:49-53.
Milic,LouisT. 1967.A Quantitative Approach totheStyle ofJonathan Swift. DenHaag:Mouton.
More,Thomas. 1516.Utopia. PaulTurner, ed.Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1965.
Morford, Mark.1984.Persius. Boston: Twayne.
Nash,Richard. 1991. "Entrapment andIronic ModesinTaleofa Tub."Eighteenth-Century Studies
24.4:415-32.
Novak, Maximillian E. 1990." Gulliver'sTravels andthePicaresque Voyage: SomeReflectionson
theHazards ofGenre Criticism." Frederick N. Smith 23-39.
Passmann, DirkFriedrich. 1987."FullofImprobable Lies":Gulliver's Travels unddieReise-
vor1726.Frankfurt:
literatur PeterLang.Aspekte derenglischen Geistes-undKultur-
geschichte,ed.Jürgen Klein, vol.10.
Paulson, Ronald.1967.TheFictions ofSatire. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins U P.
- . 1971.Hogarth: HisLife, ArtandTimes. 2 vols.NewHaven:YaleU P.
- . 1989.Breaking andRemaking: Aesthetic PracticeinEngland, 1700-1820. NewBrunswick:
Rutgers U P.
Persius[AulusPersius Flaccus].Saturae. SeeBarr, Jenkinson.
Piper,William Bowman. 1985."TheScopeofDiscourse inBerkeley andSwift." Language and
Style18:334-41.
Pons,Emile.1932."Leslangues imaginaires danslevoyage utopique.Lesgrammairiens: Vairasse
etFoigny." Revue desLangues Comparées 12:500-32.
Porter,RoyandDorothy. 1989.Patient's Progress: Doctors andDoctoring inEighteenth-Century
England. Cambridge: Polity.
Rawson, ClaudeJ.1973.Gulliver andtheGentle Reader:Studies inSwiftandOurTime. London:
Routledge & KeganPaul.1-32.
132 PETERWAGNER
Real,Hermann J.andHeinzJ.Vienken. 1984.Jonathan Swift:Gulliver's Travels. Munich: Fink.

- . 1985."TheStructure ofGulliver'sTravels." RealandVienken, eds.199-208.
Real,Hermann J.andHeinzJ.Vienken, eds.1985. Proceedings ofTheFirst Münster Symposium on
JonathanSwift. Munich: Fink.
Reynaud, Denis.1990."Pourunethéorie dela description au 18esiècle." Dix-Huitième Siècle22:
347-67, 595.
Rothe,Arnold.1986. Derliterarische Titel:
Funktionen, Formen, Geschichte. Frankfurt: Klostermann.
Schmidt,Johann N.1985. "Swift's UsesofFactandFiction: TheDrapier' sLetters. RealandVienken,
eds.247-56.
Hermann
Schnackertz, Josef. 1982. "Gulliver's
Travels : Swiftsaufklärerisches SpielmitderFiktion."
Poetica14:45-69.
Smith,FrederickN.,ed.1990.TheGenres ofGulliver's Travels.Newark: U ofDelaware P.
Smith,John.1616."A Description ofNewEngland." [London] TheComplete Works. I: 290-370.
- . 1630."TheTrueTravels, Adventures, andObservations ofCaptarne [sic]John Smith." The
Complete Works. Ill: 123-252.
- . 1986.TheComplete Works ofCaptain John Smith (1580-1631) inThree Volumes. Ed.Philip L.
Barbour. Chapel Hill:U ofNorth Carolina P.
Thomas.
Sprat, 1667.TheHistory oftheRoyal Society . London.
Jonathan.
Swift, 1726.Travels IntoSeveralRemote Nations oftheWorld. InFourParts. ByLemuel
First
Gulliver, a Surgeon, andthen Captain ofSeveral Ships. London: Benjamin Motte.
- . 1727.Travels . . . [Corrected London:
edition]. Benjamin Motte.
- . 1735.Travels . . . [Corrected Dublin:
edition]- George Faulkner.
- . 1965a.TheCorrespondence ofJonathan Swift.Ed.Harold Williams. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 5
vols.1963-65.
- . 1965b.Gulliver's Travels. Oxford: Blackwell. Vol.11ofTheProseWritings ofJonathan Swift.
Ed.Herbert Davisetal. 16vols.1939-74.
- . 1970[1961]Gulliver's Travels. 2nded.Ed.Robert A. Greenberg. NewYork:Norton.
- . 1980.AFacsimile Reproduction ofa Large-Paper Copy oftheFirst Edition ( 1726)Containing the
Author'sAnnotations andWith anIntroduction byColinMcKelvie. Delmar, NY:Scholars
Facsimiles Reprints.
- . 1986[1971]. Gulliver's Travels.Ed.PaulTurner. Oxford: Oxford U P.
Symson,William. 1715. ^4NewVoyage totheEastIndies. London.
Tavernier,
Jean-Baptiste. 1678.TheSixVoyages ofJohn BaptistaTavernier . . . London.
Taylor,Dick.1962."Gulliver's PleasingVisions: Self-Deception as a MajorTheme inGulliver's
Travels
." Tulane Studies inEnglish 12:7-61.
Teerink,Herman. 1963.ABibliography oftheWritings ofJonathan Swift.2nded.,rev.Arthur H.
Scouten. Philadelphia: U ofPennsylvania P.
Treadwell,Michael. 1985."Benjamin Motte, Andrew Tooke,andGulliver's ." Realand
Travels
Vienken, eds.287-305.
TyssotdePatot,Simon. 1710.Voyages deJacques Massé.Paris.
Uphaus, RobertW. 1979.TheImpossible Observer: Reason andtheReader inEighteenth-Century
Prose.Lexington: U P ofKentucky.
Wagner, Peter.
1988.ErosRevived: Erotica oftheEnlightenment inEngland andAmerica. London:
Seeker& Warburg. Repr. Grafton 1990.
- . 1986.Lust& LiebeimRokoko. [LustandLoveintheRococò]. Nördlingen: Greno.
Williams,Harold.1932. DeanSwift' s Library.Cambridge: Cambridge U P.
Williams,Kathleen, ed..1970. Swift:TheCriticalHeritage. London: Routledge & KeganPaul.

Swifts Great Palimpsest Intertextuality and Travel Literature in GT

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Swifts Great Palimpsest Intertextuality and Travel Literature in GT

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Center for Latin American and Caribbean Studies, University of Michigan,

SWIFT'S GREAT PALIMPSEST: INTERTEXTUALITY AND TRAVEL LITERATURE IN "GULLIVERS

SWIFT'S GREAT PALIMPSEST:

On September29th, 1725, shortlyaftercompletingthe manuscriptof

The chiefendI proposeto myselfinall mylaboris to vextheworld

GiventhedelightSwifttook in roleplaying,evenin his correspondence(Harth

process a voyage itselfthat draws the traveller/reader into an "endless and

than to violate the reader's expectationsof coherent,rationallyformulable

thereis stillno criticaleditionofan authorizedtextofGT. Meanwhile,theSwift

Sym[p]sonwhose A New Voyageto theEast Indiesappeared in 1715. There is

you willno doubt be surprisedto learnthat[some] considerthis

In fact,the portraitin the Motte editionsexistsin two different states

Frontispiece(FirstState)and title-pageforVolume I, Motte'sedition,London,

Frontispiece(Second State) and title-pagefor Volume I, Motte's edition,

Frontispieceand title-pagefor Volume III of Faulkner's edition of Swift's

FrontispieceofSwiftand title-pageforVolumeI ofFaulkner'seditionofSwift's

(A.D. 34-62), an iconoclastinhisownright,probablyappealed to Swiftbecause

The oval whichframesthe portraitis a shape commonto

A numberofobservationscan be added to Holly'sclosereadingofthelater

becametherageofthenouveauxrichesintheprofessionalclass.And Swiftas well

Ewald 1967,1-12). InHorace's Otfer (Book III: 11,1.35),thetwowordsoccurin

book intothetextwheretheconfusionbecomesevenmoreintense.The titlepage

imaginary voyage,thepicaresquenovel,and thememoir),one mightsaythatthe

thePhilosophicalTransactionsoftheRoyal Societyand on ThomasSprat'shistory

Since in theparatextof GT "hac" becomes "his" (i.e., "fromthem"or "with

Gulliver's Letter to Mr. Sympson'" (Swift 1986, 307n.2). But it is hardly

and suchwordsas Vice and Folly,Virtueand Wisdom,are clearindicationsof

In GT Swiftmakes the paratextualmatterof the prefacean act that

self-representation inthemirrorthatcomescloseto a dramatization(1987,269).

deservessome attention.For its intertextual and structuralfunctionsplay an

I wish toacknowledge thehelpI received from twocolleagues inthepreparation ofthis article.

hehad"readI know nothowmany diverting BooksofHistory andTravells" (Williams1932, 56;

Genette,Gérard. 1979.Introduction à l'architexte.Paris:Seuil.

Real,Hermann J.andHeinzJ.Vienken. 1984.Jonathan Swift:Gulliver's Travels. Munich: Fink.

You might also like