MacDonald 1

Hannah MacDonald

AP English

3-14-11

A Modest Proposal
Thesis: John Swift proposes that poor parents should raise as many children as possible and sell
them for food and clothing. He believes that they should be bred like animals, but using four
males per one female and using their skin and warm blankets and clothing. It will lessen the
mouths to feed as well as provide meals for those already growing.

1. It will help to get rid of Roman Catholics, who have lots of children. That way there will
be more room for the Protestants.
2. It will give the poorer tenants something valuable of their own and it will help pay their
landlord’s rent, their corn and cattle or even to pay off their debts.
3. It will provide a profit from introducing a new dish to the tables of men of fortune and the
money will circulate as well as the nation’s stock increasing by 50,000 pounds per
annum.
4. The breeders will not have to pay for the maintenance of the children after the first year.
5. In cooking the children, it would bring great custom to taverns to entice rich gentlemen to
fine dining and excellent cooking which enables vintners to make the meal expensive.
6. It would be a great inducement to marriage as well as increase the care and tenderness of
mothers towards their children. The mothers would be more concerned about how to
offer the market the fattest and plump child because the fatter the child the bigger the
income.

You are to compare:

1. The audience for both essays
2. The style of both essays
3. Determine, from your perspective which was the most effective at persuasion and why was it
so?

1. Both Jonathon Swift and Gene Veith present their proposals before the common
people for all to see. Neither author intended to hide the intent or purpose fully, though
Swift took great care not to openly ridicule the English for their pride and ignorance
which allowed for his underlying satire.
Swift’s proposal was written to expose the inhumanity and utter contempt of the
English people for allowing such misery and suffering to take place in a country so
nearby and helpless. The ends do not justify the means and the English people pulled
back in revulsion to Swift’s proposal, however, presently we are facing the opposite
reaction.
Veith opens his proposal to the American public (ultimately anyone with internet
in the world) through summary and analysis of Swift’s original proposal, switching gears
 MacDonald 2

to observations and studies of today’s English students and finds a great dilemma: some
truly believe Swift wanted the babies to be eaten. Many read Swift’s proposal and try to
justify or legitimize an excuse behind the action. In today’s society, it has been ingrained
in our minds the idea of utilitarianism and seem to react apathetically to life in general
because all things are relative.
I believe Veith was aiming his arguments towards those who either support pro
abortions and/or stem cell research or those who do not necessarily know what side of the
argument to take yet. He logically lays out the argument and then states the opposition in
such an enlightening way that it seems no one could deny the truth of it content.
Not only that, but Veith, as well as Swift, continually pokes fun at his audience
and reveals the absurdity of the propositions they desire to undertake alongside the fact
that students agree with the text of Swift’s proposal. In today’s society, it’s an everyday
occurrence to treat life with indifference and weigh the benefits over the cost of the
situation regardless of those who suffer in the process.
2. Their styles differ because of the vast gap when the author’s wrote their pieces, but
there are also some similarities. Swift proposal encouraged the common people to
recognize their sin and reveal to the government that their hatred was misplaced and
downright wrong. He puts forth his introduction followed by his thesis and proposals in a
step by step fashion, explaining the reason behind each. Similarly Veith lays out his
argument in such a way as to prove to the average American that their perspective on
people’s lives is callous and show how little we value a human life. He begins with his
intro and thesis as well moving right in to numbering his side of the argument, one right
after the other, in short, succinct sentences.
The styles differ because of the audience to whom they are speaking therefore use
varied vocabulary and sentence structure. Swift’s first audience I believe was the people
in their situated ‘government’ at the time which meant his proposal had to be reasonably
formal as well as being presented in a non-offensive manner. The vocabulary of the
Swift, though many words our similar from his time period to ours, was used in such a
precise fashion that the people he wrote to, felt the full weight of his meaning and passion
whereas we understand his proposal as literal. His satire is stretched throughout his entire
literary piece, however, in order to describe each proposal thoroughly, it became lengthy
and drawn out. Veith, as a journalist, has guidelines to follow, but his formality is much
more subtle. Rather than ‘beating about the bush’ he tackles the issue head-on. Because
of our ‘brainwashing’ or lack of true education, it seems that Americans completely miss
the purpose behind passages unless it is clearly displayed before them. His satire is less
subtle and more often than not the message is very straightforward, but he finishes and
ends with strong and persuasive arguments.
3. Personally I believe Veith provided the more persuasive piece because it
pertained more to issues facing people today and I understand the historical context of
where he is placing his argument whereas Swift’s argument baffled me and seemed
ridiculous and insincere. Since I did not fully understand the issues during his time period
it was harder to grasp the purpose and intention of his writing. Secondly, I did not realize
the severity of the hardships the Irish suffered under England’s ‘tyranny’ leading to a
misunderstanding of his absurd proposal and yet I also believe Swift presented a very
blaring picture of the present reality. To some who are sensitive to ideas about life and
value human beings, Swift’s proposal may be more effective, but for those who may not
 MacDonald 3

understand Swift’s use of exaggeration, may best understand Veith’s argument easier.
They can see the opinions used thoughtfully and carefully rationalized.