Great Literature Versus Popularity

After discussing it in class today, I wanted to look more closely at comments on 'immortal literary works' versus works published for public consumption, specifically what Swift himself has to say on the issue. One of Swift's main literary anxieties is the reception by the educated for an author after he has passed away and is no longer able to defend his literary reputation:
The Dean was famous in his Time
And had a Kind of Knack at Rhyme:
His way of Writing now is past;
The Town hath got a better Taste:
Swift, it seems, focused less on the popularity and the reputation of the author himself, as the critics of Dafoe seemed to do, and instead shifts his attention to preserving the ideal of canonical works, works that will be read and studied by the educated long after the author's death. In addition Swift seemed to focus on was the reception of oratorical and rhetorical “masters” despite their clear immorality:
He doth an Honour to his Gown,
By bravely running Priest-craft down:
He shews, as sure as God's in Gloc'ster,
That Jesus was a Grand Impostor:
It seemed then to Swift that the merits of a literary work and the things that seemed to make a work ‘worthy’ in Swift’s eyes were becoming more obscure and less valued by the public as a whole, making Swift have to retreat to his own circle of educated, well read and well versed circle of literary figures. However, simultaneously, the ‘impartial narrator’ who clarifies the views on Swift, post-death, complicates this notion of ‘proper’ versus public literature:
Had he but spar'd his Tongue and Pen,
He might have rose like other Men:
But, Power was never in his Thought;
And, Wealth he valu'd not a Groat
This speaker claims that Swift sought neither popularity nor power and wealth but claims Swift could have had them, had he spared his actual views on morality, women, literature, etc. This in turn antiquates great literature with the status of being obscure and un-widely read. However, something that is ‘lasting and immortal’ does not have to be and in many cases is not enjoyed by exclusively academic elitists. In fact, Shakespeare was enjoyed by royalty, academics and the public masses alike. I think Swift’s argument is divided very black and white, the battle is between holding onto to existing traditions or giving way to the shifting realities in the face of the rise of the literary marketplace. He seems to see no compromise when it comes to the status of literature and condemns those who write without the essence of ‘truth and morality’ but can flourish their argument to heights incomprehensible by the uneducated masses. However, it seems that some of his works were even doomed to this fate, as is the case with the cultural popularity of Gulliver’s Travels. It seems that this is the turning point in the debate of what is now known as canonization and the emergence and designation of authors on to or off of the cannon. These are just some preliminary observations from our text and class discussion, but I thought this would be a good jumping off point to perhaps spark some other perceptions of Swift’s satire of the state of the literary world.

18th Century Class System

After finishing Moll Flanders, the one overt theme that really stuck with me throughout the novel and until the very end was the British class system. Although not overtly addressed by Moll herself, the constraints and confinements of existing in this class system is inevitably a large force that plays a huge role in the way her story is shaped. First, I wanted to note that the class system one is born into, in this case Moll's mother being a thief and having to have a gentlewoman care for her as a young girl defines her as in a low, not even middle class, system. This early definition seems to shape the way that one views their identity and their own way of maintaining a state of survival within the society. Secondly, the ability to rise above the class one is born into seems unlikely through the tenants of hard work and dedication, as is our American ideal. Instead, whether one is born a man or a woman, if born to a lower class it seems that to survive, you must break legal and moral codes and use means such as prostitution and stealing in order to maintain stability. Although this seems to be a more prominent theme with women, Moll’s Lancashire husband makes a good case for this being necessary for both genders of lower classes. Thirdly, the means by which one is able to achieve a higher class are never truly effective. For example, when Moll becomes the mistress of the gentleman at Bath, he pays for her and is able provide her a comfortable living but upon ‘religious revelation’ is unable to continue this affair with her thereby revoking her somewhat elevated status. Another good example of this is the multiple occurrences of Moll almost getting caught stealing and when she does eventually get tried for attempting stealing. Although she does go above and beyond necessity with her stealing, her motive, unlike those of the abortion/infanticide cases I looked at, is not considered in assigning a verdict and punishment for her crime. So therefore, only socially unacceptable forms are available to attempt to shift to a higher class system and will be punished therefore making it impossible to not only surpass the class system but surpass the labels and definitions of said class system. In a modern context, this has shifted drastically in a socioeconomic context and in a literary context. We as a culture value the ability of hard work to help a person move from ‘rags to riches’ and that is often the case with sports, music and acting professions who have many ‘success’ stories of this kind, especially for those of a lower class. However, our separation of socioeconomic status seems to have shifted from a ‘class system’ to a ‘race system’ in which the poor are often portrayed as being from an ethnic background, although there is also a large proportion of Caucasians who are also in the poor category. Overall, several centuries later, this problem still exists, just taking a different mask. What this says about the structure of society seems to be a power divide that has not been overcome.

Old Bailey and Modern Conception of Crime

The two cases I chose to focus on were of Ann Mabe in 1718, accused of killing her newborn child and of Martha Barrett in 1829 accused of murdering her newborn child as well. First, I would like to look at each case individually before considering the social and cultural implications of each. In Mabe's case, she denied having had a child despite physical evidence of what she later claimed was an 'abortion.' However, the body of the child was found in what the recorder calls the 'Vaults' but no damage, other than a cheek indentation was seen. The final verdict was not guilty due to, "It was the Opinion of the Midwise and Court, That a Child that is new born, if alive, came into the World with its Hands expanded; but, if dead, with its Hands clench'd." In Martha's case, she also denied recently having had a child despite the physical evidence of 'after-birth.' Then upon the discovery of remains in the flower pots, she owned up to cutting off the head of said child and then burning and burying the remains. She was charged as guilty, but her charge was for concealing pregnancy rather than the actual murder itself and was imprisoned rather than executed.

Now, when considering these two cases, although more than 100 years apart, the cultural shift is not as drastic as one would think. Originally, Mabe was acquitted due to a superstition about children's birth and Barrett was given a lesser offense. Throughout the duration of this time, neither woman is actually convicted with a murder sentence despite the undisputable evidence of child remains. It seems then, that the desperation of women such as these, were treated lighter than even a theft case, such as we see in Moll Flanders. It seems the court was more lenient, especially for women of little means or without male support.

Contrasting this with our current system, the two major political parties are polarized decades after Roe v Wade. On the left, we have pro-choice and pro-contraceptive and keeping the government out of controlling a woman’s choice to decide when and if and how large she wants her family to be. On the right, we have pro-life who are urging for bills to define personhood at the moment of conception in order to make abortion be seen as murder. This is drastically different than 18^th and 19^th century England who, although knowing the mother ended a born child’s life, refused to sentence them to guilty of murder and the death sentence. Our current political climate seems to be in reverse and less progressive than ever on such an issue and all of the roadblocks preventing women from making their own health decisions despite the cause of said decision.

This backwards slide leaves me gob smacked in that for a society that would hang people for petty theft and was seen as greatly and strictly religious and moral, would allow murder of already born children compared to the secular society that we have today, who wants to define the termination of even a 4 week old pregnancy as murder. I think this, more than anything, shows the shift in our morals from the commandments, such as Thou Shalt Not Steal, to a focus on 'human' morals of battery, assault, homicide, genocide, abortion etc. Although, on the surface, while seeming to move away from religious conviction and influence, our modern society instead seems to move even further into religious belief as the basis for political issues and laws. In would seem then, that although we consider our system of justice to be better, we are on a precarious ledge into reverting to 18^th century law, and in fact becoming even more severe if abortion were to be made illegal.